This is How Easy It Is to Lie With Statistics 

Loved the video. I also liked Numb3rs and cannot wait to see what you do with it. Rossmo's Formula blew my mind Edit: loved how you perfectly generalized people on the interwebs

It was interesting, I like these videos.

It was a spectacular video. Thanks a lot for those crime stories.

MajorPrep do videos on architecture and architectural engineering

Would you consider doing a video on game theory?

1000 Jewish people were interviewed after being released from concentration camps. You know what, I won't go there.

yes , everyone survived.... with an unloaded revolver.

@@boombam9611 no no haha the only way someone could be interviewed after playing Russian Roulette was if they survived. It is impossible to interview people who have played Russian Roulette and died because of it, so of course any such interviewing would yield a 100% survival rate.

@@hrthrhs I’m pretty sure that’s the point of the original comment

This one is called survivor's bias. There's a good example of the Brits determining which parts of a fighter plane to add armor to, and they used the planes that returned to make the decision.

Lol

73.6% of all statistics are made up

@@ITR but other statistics have shown that that is, in fact, false

Fuck. You : )

I literally believed you quite a lot before finishing the sentence. Afterwards I realized that you started the sentence with "Statistics have shown" which made me realize that it already fooled me.... good one

that is a really cool question, as it really drills home how unreliable statistics are, if you yourself can abuse it.

There's a cool example of this in the Simpsons Paradox, which can be used to fudge results for drug trials to the untrained eye.

@@yeckiLP in Germany we say "vertraue nie einer Statistik die du nicht selbst gefälscht hast", basically "never trust statistics you yourself didn't manipulate"

That’s sound so cool could you share it or just describe the question?

@@ZaHandle That was like 5 years ago, all I've written everything I remember about it in the original comment

That's per 100k population. To put it in perspective, for that equivalent year, that's a 52% chance of being killed compared to living in USA. However, two years prior, there was only a 13% chance relative to USA, with a roughly 1/5 chance over the past 10 years. The reason I point out USA is all the gun-related deaths vs. NZ which has much stricter firearms laws. However you look at 2.6 vs 5.1 (rounded) / 100k being high or low, it's interesting how many people say NZ is so safe and USA is dangerous -- future years will determine if NZ retraces lower.

Going from 1 to 3 is 200% increase, not 300%

@@nccamsc Lol again shows how unintuitive statistics can be

That's why you measured it per capita....

@@junkbond4882 According to wikipedia New Zealand had 126 cases of intentional homicide in 2019, a rate of 2.6/100k. During the Christchurch mosque shooting that year 51 people were killed, i.e. nearly half of all intentional homicide victims in 2019 thereby close to doubling the rate per 100k. The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas killed 61 people. With total intentional homicide victims north of 20000 that year this event didn't have any impact on the rate per 100k for the US. Context is key...

Good one

lmao coddy is such a legend

Savage

I mean obviously, radiation positing feels fucking amazing and idk why more people don't like it

I love how the fifth comment talks about enjoying radiation poisoning

Woah. Dark way of saying it, but I see you

@@SisypheanSeas13 perfect! I'm "stealing" this quote, but I'll use in portuguese!

I might use this haha, brilliant phrase

@@claudiomaiasantos How do you say it in portuguese?

I found it disconcerting that I couldn't find the median life expectancy for most countries. Mean is very unreliable. It can be warped with outliers and noise. Median is far more reliable. So when trying to compare the U.S. to Japan, I only found that the U.S. median life expectancy is 84.5. I have no idea what Japan's is.

Yeah but logic doesn't get ad revenue

@@toby7161 based

...If media was honest.... FACEPALM CITY this is why I DON"T use FB....and other sites....yeah I know YT is not Immune to this tactic . . ..... Fun Fact '100% of People that commented on this video watch RU-vid at some point' lol

But politicians, and their advisors, can't use that information to improve their election, or re-election for that matter, chances

Downside is people may stop paying attention after "double"

yup. especially because of how messed up the case a whole was. they really fucked that woman over for a disease people are only just beginning to understand

The conviction was later overturned. On the second appeal it was shown the statistics from Dr. Meadow were incorrect and cases like that happen much more frequently than suggested by the figure (1 in 73mil).

Such is life my friend. Sometimes the whole world is against you even though you haven't done anything. Just remember that when you are judging other people in the future. Never think that there is no way you are wrong.

​@@mrlantan3318 I remember reading about this, but I think the reason it was overturned was because as medical science advanced, they found some genetic reason for the deaths.

yeah it's super messed up...

This is enlightening and makes me horny. The perfect comment.

Arnold What the fuck

I'm so going to use that one.

Lies, damn lies and statistics....Mark Twain!

@@digitalfootballer9032 same lol, i have a really important data visualization project coming up....

Lol yes

Agreed. This has earned a sub!

Only around 14.3% of the time though

@@billyusher4907 76.3% of all statistics are made up.

Cant agree more

Cool

Including 0 isn't actually the pertinent part. What's important is having a consistent scale that includes 0. You can have a graph that includes 0 but also has a break in its axis. Like if you have a graph with data in a field that goes from 0 to 100 but all of the data is grouped in the 80s, you could have the axis of the graph go: 0, 10 ... 70 80 90 100. This includes 0 but still suffers the same deceptive look as if it didn't.

I think a big one is --> BE CAREFUL OF DRAWING CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT THINKING

@@Strawberryfreak Well yes but that's kinda besides the point. It's easy to just tell people to think more, but the thing is people might not know _what_ or _how to think._ There's a difference between telling people to just be critical and teaching people to think critically. That's where knowledge comes in. Knowing there's a significant difference between percentage increase and percentage point increase is something to be learned. Or knowing how much it matters how the data was derived and out of which group the percentage is drawn from. It's never just "think about it first", it's also realizing what there is to think about, what do we mean by the fact points given. Out of those specified definitions and the context, a "fact" means nothing at all. Not everybody, without being taught to, realizes this matters. It's one thing to be sceptical about a statistics in a title of a news article. It's a whole another thing to know that news headlines aren't statistics, that just because something was said, the reality of the matter is only revealed once you know the details. People also easily assume a moral value for pieces of trivial information. Just saying the rate of dropping out of studies has increased, for example, doesn't mean we're saying it's a bad thing. We aren't saying anything at all about whether it's good or bad with that piece of knowledge unless we specify why and justify such moral evaluation separately. This is also one of those things a lot of people don't necessarily know or realize to question. Categorical scepticism isn't necessarily smart either, and this idea of never trusting what we're being told instead of practicing curiosity and aiming to _know_ more is what has contributed to mistrust in media and authorities of information. It goes from "think first" to "don't trust at face value" to "don't trust media" to "we're being lied to and new information should be categorically rejected because authorities of information are by nature untrustworthy". No, the point isn't to be sceptical, it's to understand what it means to say certain things and why it matters how things are spoken about. Being sceptical for the sake of it paradoxically doesn't make people any less susceptible for being manipulated, in fact less so.

Damn, that's smart

Men usually are taller than women so they have bigger feet, does that mean men are better at math them women

@@lotuswolf1518 I mean statistically, guys are better at math, so I mean ig it does.

@@trevor987 women are more calculative though

That's why in my AP stats class my teacher made it a huge deal to put the context, the group we where studying, any stratification, the way we got the data, any sort of bias that could came up, and error we couldn't account for. Stats are so easily capable to be miscommunicated even if you meant well. Someone could take a number you put out there in good intention and use it to push an agenda while ignoring key aspects of the stat. A stat isn't just the probability, it's the context and situation it was taken with.

red dwarf may be random but it sure as hell isn't a random show

@@bickieditch9168 It was actually Diane Morgan idk what the show was probably in the description to this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QgCEbfRbK-0.html

only in overly simplistic binary worlds

If you look in a dark ally, maybe

@@bickieditch9168 Red Dwarf? I thought it was BBC News they were talking about.

Yeah it’s interesting how people think about percentages

I spend the same on marketing each month and only make adjustments periodically. If sales are up one month it might be 5% of sales spent on marketing. If sales drop for a month it might be 8% spent. But I didn’t change what I spent.

19! years is longer than a human lifespan

The rates only halve?

Lol

Magic Gonads Here‘s the thing: 100% of X is X. So if X increases by 100% (of X), it increases by X, so there‘s an additional X is added to the original X, which means that it was doubled. If X decreases by 100%, it decreases by X, so there‘s X subtracted from the original X, which means that it went to zero. Clearer now?

The comments in this one are hilarious because people are arguing statistics for 20 year olds who are no longer teenagers.

Night mare You right lol

You can also live the entire rest of your life without breathing. -Vsauce

if u give a man fire he'll be warm for a night but if u set a man on fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life

the people who passed by without liking this comment, should consider re-watching the video so that more brain cells can grow.

You can extend your life by consuming food and water. Fallacy: Eternal life

You seem so nice. I'd like to chat :)

I feel like statistics should be a required class, over something like trigonometry. You’re not using that in life unless you’re in a math heavy field, but statistics are everywhere

@@mikaelvirji5807Thankfully, where I’m from, it was covered in maths

"I feel enlightened" is what I think after watching any Zack Star video

Is statistics not a compulsory topic in mathematics there? Where do you live? In ours it was compulsory from I don't even remember when but I think it was middle school before we ever learned about trigs

You should see how the extra arm improves onanism.

Imagine if there is some human born with like 20 arms, we would all have less arms than the average human

@@martimsalvador9186 well, assuming there's more than 18 people with 1 arm less than 2 (not even counting those without any arms) then the 1 person with 18 arms more than 2 wouldn't bring up the average enough to make average≥2

@@allanknox8216 wayyyy rarer than a missing arm

Since there are alive people, the world average of deaths per person is around 80%

Walmart has a 2.6% job acceptance rate??

@@Claricio imagine like 1000 people a year applying for Walmart bc everyone can apply but Walmart only needs 3 workers

@caprice.t Yeah that's right, gotta look at the size of the sample, not only the proportion of the sample that's accepted into a job or a programme

@caprice.t One thing though. Its not easier, its just more likely. For the average person It would be easier to get tô work for Walmart, but since only people with a decent level of instruction apply to Harvard, its more likely that these people would succeed, but for a regular person It would be almost Impossible

I doubt Walmalt has a 2.6% acceptance rate, but it's not hard to imagine that out of all the Walmarts in the world, one of them somewhere has a 2.6% acceptance rate due to an overabundance of unskilled workers applying.

THAT WRONG you simple do not know statistics if i put half of your body in the freezer, and but half of you in the oven , and we make statistical analysis of your body temp we will get your body is in IDEAL temperature of course we know that you will die in this scenario does statistic lie?? NO the problem is YOU and you do not release what the number represents it not a problem of statisitc mate its a problem that people have not idea what the number represent

@@sonaruo That is rather harsh as OP did not say that statistics lie. He, in fact, stated that any story you want can be weaved by using the same data. You just decided to take the moral high ground when OP's claim was completely valid. I think everyone understands that statistics by itself is not the evil here. It is willful or unwitting use of incorrect or partial statistics that can potentially cause lot of harm.

@@AnkhArcRod sorry mate but the wording is plain wrong "whatever story you want to tell" no mate you cna nto use the math to say that blanc is white and white is black you simpel can not. but if the people do not know the numbers and the precise wording then people will assume something different because they consider the number represent something that it is not thats not a fault of statistic or that statistic said that to begin with example is the 100% and the 5% raise the wording is not the exact same its tiny different so you know how to use that number they give you since they are 2 different things the 100% is the rate of measurement while the 5% is the net increment. when you are given that the wording is slight different so you can say what it is and use them properly. now if the for the people the rate of changing something and the actual speed is the sam eis ther problem my math professor said this word of wisdom you think you do nto need math, what you teach today you will never use, but these numbers will be used in your every day life and because you will be unabme to understand what they represent they will maniip[ulate to do what ever they want. because he have books written , we teach something to people it does not mean that all people will understand it and comprehend it geee if that was truw 100% of the population will be scientist with doctor level and we will be going in another galaxy to settle down by now. and statistic is easy and real straight forward to do it if you want real massacre go is probabilities the majority of the problems are counter intuitive and many times to sovle them and be sure that its the correct one we end up brute force the problem

@@sonaruo And despite that, OP has over 9000% more likes than yours. Where does that put you?

@@sonaruo The OP of this thread basically said the same thing this video said. It is EASY to use statiscs to form a story that you want to happen, or you can use data to grant the impression you want by with holding context. Yes if you do not understand the data your more likely to belief it but if I said out of 1000 people who applied to a job with 400 openings 0% percent of women who applied where accepted. Its very easy to understand no women where given a job. This is the sort of situation that was talked about its miss leading and with holding info. If I told you 1000 people applied to become a male stripper and 1 women applied who did not get the job is very different intent of presentation to 100% of the women who applied did not get the job. I hate % with a passion its easy to mislead as a 100% increase is alarming but you can also say there was a 5% increase for the same data. I mean you can even use that term a 100% increase if the sample size simply decrease. It depends if you look at all the data or just the increase. Look at house prices in NZ and you will see a misrepresentation of what they are increasing by as its better to use the 5% but if you want to create a panic or a rush to do something use the 100%.

Statistics: 95% chance of winning, you should take this bet. *Takes the bet and lost Statistics: I said a 95% chance of winning not that you will win, I can't help the fact that you're a loser.

100% statisticians made at least one correct statement about statistics, which many non-statisticians never have. Therefore, statisticians are more trustworthy. Which means you really should trust a statistician you just met more than you should trust a non-statistician you have known for your whole life.

@@Kasiarzynka Many is a tricky word in statistics. A responsible statistician will not use this word in this context as "many" can be interpreted as any number greater than 100. Since a non-responsive statistician has a higher rate of using misleading statistics, I will not trust you here.

13 100 50 100

It's the "science" that knows every other science better than the scientists in those areas without knowing anything about the science or so some of my former bosses think.

I don't get it. Can you explain pls?

@@hienable6933 A difference between percentages is called percentage points. An invaluable concept if taking statistics serious.

Thanks for saying this ! I didn't know the difference and wanted to what was it :)

@Hi Enable Percentage increase is based on what the value originally was and percentage points is based on how many percents was added. Let's say something went from 20% to 30% That's a 50% increase from where it was, and it went up by 10 percentage points. Hope that helps!

you could just say difference in percentage

dew it

Math is wonderful. Few things are more beautiful in life than math, pretty much nothing

​@@lucazani2730let things better than math be epsilon>0....

“It makes life 200% easier”

It's been 11 months, how's statistics going?

Is there a fallacy for this?

Sorry, your first statement is OBVIOUSLY WRONG. If EVERYONE EVER has died on Earth -- who posted the video? Who's replying to you? Who, in fact, posted your comment?

@S J Yes, but what you WROTE was the EVERYONE that has EVER been on Earth, including those on it now, have died.

@@jdinhuntsvilleal4514 Well, he's right, he just posted in advance.

but some deaths have occurred in outer space

what

@@Kamoojaan watch the video

That would be terrifying to hear.

@@Kamoojaan stupid

Maybe she was boinking Targets statistician

Witnesses aren't the most trustworthy source either

@@PeataPoeet But they can be cross examined to see if their story holds up.

Eyewitness testimony is, over all, is, far and away, the least reliable generally presented in criminal cases.

yeah I think that it's now no longer allowed in court. There are so many ways to make it look like one thing and be a totally different thing. The more qualities you rack up, the less likely a specific person in a group is to match that description, but it still doesn't prove it *was* them, it proves it's unlikely it wasn't them. It feels dirty to put someone behind bars not because someone saw them do it, finger prints were found and they had intent to do it, but because it's unlikely that anyone else fitting the description of the eye witness(s) exists in that city. I feel like it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" rule of the courts.

@@tylerfitz2809 exactly

If the probability that the person is guilty isnt 100%, I say they go free.

@@mikaelvirji5807 Things are rarely 100%, but if there's not a convincing case and evidence then I think statistics should not be used in an attempt to sway the jury.

It can't be 100%. That is why they set the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Youll be happy to know then that these examples are famous in the statistics world and actually *were* in the first few lessons of my probability theory course :)

@@MrWatermanx2 same, we didn't have the exact same examples, but the message was the same

stories are super common in marketing college classes... kinda old news actually. I went to college almost two decades ago.

Yes, it's how statistics can give you the power to lie, and how to use them to push your own agenda. Maybe they should teach this in highschool honestly.

It is, these are cliche examples that I heard in class years ago.

sounds like a plan

100 percent of all non-air-breathers also die.

@@ivystarlight17 conclusion: breathe

@@ivystarlight17 this is because 100% of people who have drank water die. Conclusion: don't breathe or drink water

1 out of every 10 individuals can't spell Conclusion: You should learn to spell conclusion and not conclution PS. Its a joke don't get angry!

Liars can figure, and figures can lie. 😷🤧🙃😁

Fun fact - the author of that book "Darrell Huff" was actually a tobacco industry lobbyist and that book was a part of that propaganda. You can check it here: statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2012/04/27/how-to-mislead-with-how-to-lie-with-statistics/

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 Was that the inspiration for the movie "Thank You For Smoking" or are the two unrelated?

@@CynicalOldDwarf I haven't seen the movie. But sounds like it's a goon one. I'll look into it and let u know.

Bill gates has that same book.

this is a good one

@@aarontheperson6867 not really

@@kobakun584 ok

AaronThePerson it’s alright, he’s probably just one of the swimmers who drowned

@@kobakun584 people who swim spend more time in water, leading to more people drowning. Not learning to swim makes you more likely to drown if thrown in water, but less likely to drown in your life.

Its legit. Losing makes you upset lol

@@khanhsp imagine starting smoking because you're upset lol

Imagine playing FORTNITE in 2020

@@hissingfaunaa oh yes, I never play games because I like them, just because they're popular /s

imagine not letting people enjoy Fortnite just because it's 2020

Most people also have an above average number of limbs.

@@SuperSox97 Unless we also count the limbs inside pregnant women, in which case I'd need actual numbers before committing myself to an answer.

@@EvenTheDogAgrees you are forgetting that if anyone is missing limbs it brings the average under 4(2 arms, 2 legs) which means that anyone who has 2 arms and 2 legs than they have an above average number of limbs.

@@retrorocket9951 Like I said: _unless_ we count the limbs _inside_ pregnant women.

@@EvenTheDogAgrees ah sorry i thought you were saying that wouldn't be true unless we counted pregnant people. My mistake.

😂😂

Other half... Hold up. 🤚🏻🤔❓ Lol.

80% Other “half” ⭐️

/wooosh

So 10%?

go figure

I’ve seen your comments on other videos lol, they must have been good comments for me to remember

IM liker 200

Ooo. Yo daddy smart.

my father once told me the world was gonna roll me

who even told you to play fortnite? just go for minecraft!

Fortnite Just freaking copies people they just freaking copied yandere simulator

@@kuljitminhas8707 in what exactly? i'm curious to know cuz i haven't played it ( and i'll never do)

Well ... at least now I know why I smoke and have bad grades ...

kuljit minhas lmao

I liked because I found your comment helpful. I was trying to remember how to say it. But I disagree with the notion that since people should know the difference, that gives us free rein to use percent changes without also specifying what the percentage point change is. Just because some people are ignorant doesn't mean it's right to take advantage of it.

i didn't know the name for it until i passed by this comment , so thanks for reminding me =)

this is so important, I was looking for someone pointing it out

@@ex0stasis72 go tell that to all the marketing departments that use this garbage to increase sales and make money for their company. I'm sure they'll be willing to stop because you feel it's unfair to all the idiots out there

Volume speaks volumes.......

That is why a jury shouldn't make a decision based off of circumstancial evidence alone. No one should be found guilty unless forensics show that they are guilty.

@@CalebPaulk The jury was fucking retarded, by doing the statistic, they disproved the child dying from SIDS, not proving the mother killed it. I just dont get it...

It's called British Justice

@@we-are-electric1445 It's not as bad as yank justice.

@@Takkion Last time i checked, Casey Anthony was tried in Florida.

It is a really good start though. I can't seem to reach anyone that doesn't already mildly understand how a statistic is even brought into fruition, nevermind the why. This introduction on the topic will likely save me at least an hour of my next conversation when pointing out the way media covers current events. Such as the scamdemic and inflation, or our country's spending vs GDP. These media outlets utilize these same techniques to sway people into voting for Representatives that are going to push legislation that, at the core, doesn't make any sense.

I don't have your credentials, but I do have 6 undergraduate and 6 graduate credits in statistics. I agree with you that David did a good job but there are so many other ways people lie with statistics. One of the big ones is when a single study comes out to prove a point and it's taken as gospel. Most people aren't aware of the need for an independently replicated study that produces the same results, they just assume the solo study is valid.

@@danielreshenterprises6174 well said. I agree 100% with the notion that one study without peer review is opinion, not science. The great thing about science is that findings are open to be replicated and if there are different results, we can all learn why. The best question and, in my opinion, the beginning and demise of our mortal selves, starts and ends, with the question, "WHY?".

@M M that is a very good point. This is where intellectualism and understanding of where the "peer review"originated from, comes into play. I preached to my son constantly, who recently turned 18 years of age, that the device that is in his pocket has unlimited knowledge. Back in my day we had to consult the encyclopedia Britannica. It is much easier today to learn about something, anything, that we don't already know.

@@RdeneckTech DING!

Truly

Ong

Losing in fortnite is not smoking

@@LavaCreeperPeople I lit up my first Doobie after grabbing a fat L in FN

Losing in fortnite -> heroine addiction

*slides money to the dentist* you sure?

It's worse than that because they have to manufacture "80% recommend colgate" because nobody will believe "100% recommend colgate"

in the States they say "4 out of 5" which is probably a little clearer...and probably required by law

@@garygarypov5060 in brazil they say 9 out of 10 lol i guess it depends on the country (how they go about it)

@@hannalowercase5928 same for the uk, its 9 out of 10, my data suggests that 195% of countries follow that format

Same

#metoo

same here!

Using your headlights is unhealthy. Statistically speaking, people who use their headlights at night are more likely to die from disease or illness than people who drive at night without headlights.

Yeahh

That's pretty low level manipulating that literally a 7th grader could tell was fishy.

@@rivershen8199 Whats crazy though, is that it still works even on people who know that.

So...AI have been removing my comment several times now because of certain words. So for this comment to make any sense, I need to clarify what I mean by certain words: LowVibb19 = that thing that is spreading around the world that people are shit scared of even though it has a 99% survival rate. Max = That thing that they want you to take into your bloodstream so that a certain industry can earn billiions of dollars even though it doesn't even work as intended. Now here's my comment: Here's another one for ya: You can also cheat with the statistics with how you define something. For example: They don't define a person as being fully Max'ed until two weeks after they've had the 2nd LowVibb19 Max. So anyone who gets seriously injured or die right after the first Max or within the first two weeks after the 2nd Max, will be defined as "un Max iated" in the statistics. So all the hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people world wide who have been seriously injured or died from the LowVibb19 Max will not be counted in the statistics. Clever, huh? I personally know several people this has happened to.

@@DolphinsPlayingInAquaMoonlight This isn't statistics, it's a bait

@@DolphinsPlayingInAquaMoonlight Thats the dumbest shit i have heard in a while tbh

I really hope that Sally and all of her immediate family members genetics were taken into account because rare genetic disorders can be very prevalent and over represented in a family with a faulty genetics

This video will probably definitely help you irl

I just don’t understand how a doctor couldn’t see how those two events could be reasonably dependent, not independent. I have little medical education, but even I could assume immediately that someone who gave birth to a dead child once may reasonably have some type of health condition that could lead to a second problematic childbirth.

@@dathunderman4 well the prosecution was operating under the assumption of guilt: they found a doc who would say what they wanted and didn't waste time trying to see if it actually held up scrutiny

The case of Sally Clark sounds very similar to a now proven link of genetic defect causing death in very young. 60 Minutes Australia aired a similar incident of a woman, jailed so far, for 18yrs, her surname Folbigg, last night 29Aug2021. She lost 4 young children. She has lost her latest appeal based on the statistics rather than the new scientific study.

Then how did the 2nd one miss?

Because the average of the two shots was zero feet, or right on the target

@@user-gt2ds9lr2g I can't believe you had to explain that. Lol

my temptation is to say “absolutely yes” but i think we might be better off trying to explain this phenomenon to as many people as possible because the people who are committed to lying might find a way around it if we make it illegal lol

Man I teach Excel. And for some reason Excel automatically sets other number different than zero in bar charts. The user has to perform some extra steps just to make the bar chart look like a real comparison.

I think it was just cause he was too old to deal with that crap

It depends SOOO much on context, though. If you were showing a graph of a person’s body temperature with vs without medication, starting the graph at 0 would make no sense because you would barely be able to tell a difference of 4 degrees, even though that can mean the difference between a mild fever and someone needing hospitalization.

@@spost1986 excellent point. 👍👍

LOL this comment should have the most likes 😂😂

Salim Chahine my stats teacher told me that and I never forgot.

This is the safest way to travel

@@danielzaiser how

Ok this is top comment

Jayne I can’t escape the best ow coach in the world, even when I don’t watch his RU-vid

Me too

did you like this comment?

me too

Becouse that's what heroes do

Context is everything.

To be fair though, it would take too long to tell the whole story of most things, and you're assuming the person you're speaking to is educated and aware enough of both sides already

@@Christoff070 The real trick isn't to lie to people. The real trick is to get people so emotionally invested in what you're saying that they'll believe in it even when faced with conflicting evidence that is true OR false. You can pretty easily get people wound up into what you're selling without lying, too. You just need a couple half-truths and a superficial comparison or two.

@@ScrambledAndBenedict the political grifters of the world know this well

Your remark indicates to me that "Nobody" wants me to thing a certain way

anchorman?

There are 20 people in your high school?

"the doctor say he's got a 50-50 chance of living, though there's only a 10% chance of that"

@@Ignirium I've heard that before, what show is that from? A 10% chance of a 50/50 chance would make it a 5% chance, right?

@@zchettaz Naked Gun 33 1/3! the Original joke before Anchorman made theirs - i reckon they knew about it.

kekw

omegalol

The percentage of DNA inherited from your father is slightly less than 50%, and men actually inherit a slightly higher percentage of their genetic material from their mothers. The reasons for these quirks of inheritance are due to mitochondrial DNA being inherited from the mother and y chromosomes containing fewer genes than x chromosomes. The differences are small enough that they rarely matter but they are real.

@@garethbaus5471 then it’s still gay

This is called a circular argument which uses itself to explain a fact , was explained in ancient greek times as a fallacy , but i see the humor behind it.

Most if it boils down to the fact that most people are not mathematicians, but also don't want to seem dumb by admitting they didn't learn enough about mathematics to understand what the numbers actually mean. if people would worry less about what they seem to be and start to worry more about what they actually are, this might chance, I doubt it will be any time soon.

*change

One of the troubles there though is the hired gun. In the video example the prosecution was able to hire a mathematical gunslinger to argue their case for them. Either he was incompetent or dishonest in doing so. The defense was apparently unable to find a gunslinger of their own to explain the problems with the prosecution's argument. Not everybody's lawyer happens to date an expert. Whatever else I did with my degree in math, I was resolved that I did not want to be a gunslinger for some corporation (or think tank with an agenda). Yet doubtless I might have made a better living as a gunslinger and be highly regarded in society. I might even be able to tell myself that I was shooting on the side of justice.

@@BlacksmithTWD This is part of the problem definitely. At the same time, there is also a large element of confirmation bias as OC says. If it supports our narrative or fits our worldview, it's extremely credible and transparent. If not, we find 1,000 things to criticize about it.

yea almost

However people who own cars (thus have headlights) are probably wealthier than those who can't afford cars and wealthier people can then also afford medicine etc.

But was that really causation or just correlation?

I thought the same thing but it was the people being lit by the headlights who were healthier.

SAME

Illianor123 you must not travel much. Most people don't own cars and managed to hit 80+ fairly easily. There's literally no correlation between being owning a car and the potential state of health of a person.

Birthdays are unhealthy. The more you have the closer you are to dying.

Agent J yes, lets measure the worth of a life by counting the number of birthdays celebrated. and what feelesh meant was that the same data looks very different if viewed thru a different lens

@Agent J you can't remember if you're dead (The dark humor has gotten to me)

@@abhaysreeram978 Spot on. Agent J has to post garbage on here because the schools are closed.

Neither are you, after the heat death of the universe all life will cease to exist

@@aligator7181 ?

@@aligator7181 You can divide the fraction itself. If you don't convert it into decimal you should be fine. Do you know a way that 1/3 could actually be divided exactly using numbers and symbols that represent actual mathematics vs those that simply show that it divides in a certain way. (sorry if the way I phrased this is wonky. It's 2am here.)

@El Caranaoi Aren't Mark Twain's quotes just the best?

@@aligator7181 your logic is like a flatearthbeliver's XD Amusing bytheway, no bad meaning. I really enjoyed to read your words. If u cut something into half and isn't a very same any kind of amount after, u was not cut it half. Simple like that. The problem is that u major to human imperfection. Should not. 0.3333 (3 to infinitive) * 3 = 1 Your calculator knows that. There is a video about at Veritasium chanel in some math theme one

@@aligator7181 and u keep on major to human imperfection... ;) How can your calculator give a correct answer? Two steps to check it 1. 1/3 2. Result * 3 Result? 1 Just because we can't do something it doesn't mean it's impossible I gave a source Check it out Well explained by competent ppl I save some time and search the exact name of the video, sec

lol

\m/ !!!

omL!!!!! I will never see Target the same way again, after this comment. I might even stop shopping there.😭

Pin this comment! That’s clever!

@@someguy007 What the big tech companies do with your data nowadays makes Target look cute and slow.

Isn't "the average person" similar to "a randomly selected person"? Would a way to create the same effect be "the average number of a person's hands is less than two" or do you have something better?

@@JonathanLyons7 "a randomly selected person " is the most common value, also known as Mode. The average is just compiling and comparing, most people have 2 hands, then you have a small amount of people that have 1 hand so the result would be something like 1.993 (I'm making up the number and also taking the possiblity of having more hands rather than less out of the equation as I assume that is at least less common). Which technically is less than 2.

@@JonathanLyons7 so if out of 20 students, everyone gets a 50/100 then the one person gets a 0, the average would be 47.5, technically less than 50. The example given by the previous user highlights an extreme case of this

The median number of hands is 2.

The average person has an above average number of hands

Hard agree.

If there is any hard evidence proving guilt/innocence in the first place, then why bother with statistics ?

@@Eclypso02 proving guilt has to be 99% beyond any reasonable doubt. Sometimes statistics can push it over the boundary. It's all about convincing the jury.

@@Eclypso02 Because you don't know what the defense will say regarding the proof. Statistics can make the defense tougher, but I don't think anyone should use statistics as the only argument of guilt.

Or "science", the next most misleading source of information. Science is always changing and updating, and when people get the idea in their heads that "science" is a hard-core, reliable vault of absolute certainty, they turn it into tyrannical dictators.

Theres a lot of people who purchase pregnancy tests that end up not being pregnant. Prenatal vitamins might actually correlate better since people who are trying to get pregnant or know they are pregnant purchase them.

Zachary Walter it was a joke lol

@@officergreg1318 Yeah, for sure. It still missed the point that was made in the video though. The guy was talking about women that already knew they were pregnant and how shopping patterns might reveal who they are. Women that already know they're pregnant don't buy pregnancy tests. Still, I like the joke.

Or that they stop buying proud products

@@Alchatraaz938 Good to know

Aaron Linden Well, not to be pedantic but... I think you might also be misapplying stats here (whether or not it’s for rhetorical effect I can’t tell). We don’t know the specificity of Target’s algorithm. They may have sent many such girls pregnancy ads when they weren’t pregnant. That they happened to get it right with this girl doesn’t necessarily mean they knew the girl was pregnant.

I think target then gets legal rights to be the grandparent

@@themedicallinguist6456 Target didn't "know" anything. They just had a statistical model with a very high accuracy. Like, really high. However you are right that there is another component that the example doesn't reveal. Its an important question when asking if a statistical model is accurate or not. Who does it apply to? In this case, Target was only collecting data on its customers. Target "knows" that it makes the most money from parents than from non-parents. So from the start it was already starting with a smaller and more focused pool of data. The statistical model just refined that to a more laser point accuracy. So much so that the father - not just Target - was able to suspect his daughter was pregnant (or at least suspect a conncection between his daughter and pregnancy), based purely on the coupons she was receiving! To me that is the crazy part. When you have a statistical model so accurate that a third party can look at the results and come to the same (or near ballpark estimate) conclusion that you did, you know you are on to something.

Felix Feliciano What you’re saying depends on the specificity and sensitivity of the model. We don’t just talk about how “accurate” a statistical model is - without knowing the rate of false negatives and false positives, we don’t know how significant a true positive is. Obviously, Target was not right about every customer. What if this model erroneously concluded that a million such customers were pregnant when they weren’t actually pregnant? That would make the case of this 18yo less astounding. For instance, imagine the following two different models working with the same pool of 100 customers, 5 of which are pregnant: Model A guesses that out of 100 customers, 50 are pregnant. Model B guesses that out of the same 100 customers, 10 are pregnant. Both models guessed correctly about the 5 pregnant customers, including a particular 18yo girl - a true positive. But the result in Model B has a lower rate of false positives, and therefore in statistics we say that it has a higher “specificity”. We aren’t told what the specificity of Target’s test was. Without knowing that, we should withhold our conclusions on how “crazy” and “accurate” we think the model is until we know that. Zach brought this example up to demonstrate just this.

@@themedicallinguist6456 Well lets be 100% clear. That anadoctal story was just a drop in the bucket. It turns out that their "lets mix in junk ads" was round 2. In round 1, they didnt hide at all that they knew someone was pregnant - and it freaked people out. While I get what you are going, I would contend it as a moot point. The people most affected by it - namely Target and Target's customers - found it to be scarily accurate. Sure, one can contend that they took a shotgun approach - I would call them idiots - but one doesnt need to be accurate with a grenade. Especially when that grenade just so happens to have homing shrapnel designed specifically to track down pregnant women.

The average human has one breast and one testicle.

If you are male, your dick is lager than over 40% of the population

You mean fewer than two arms.

@@khajiithaswares4147 Thats good news, because average weight AND height are increasing. A dick 170cm long and 80 kilos is quite impressive for an average. Also lol with the khajiit.

@@CraftyTurtle317 Too much Slaanesh. Time for Exterminatus.