Unmasking the hidden paradox in data 

your videos are really interesting... keep up d good work.. ^_^

Hi. I already studied Simpson's paradox in my statistic class. Thanks for making this video. I will share with my friends.

+Bite Size Psych Hey Keep it up, the quality of your videos is the best. I have watched all of them, and i think i need to watch once more few of the videos again. I dont care if you publish 2 videos a month. As long as they are this good. I really like network effect, success stories are misleading, and few more i dont remember exactly.

***** Woah cool.

I love your videos. Please post more. =)

huge endings always have small beginnings... that's y.. ;-P

+Shivee star That's deep man. Well said

+jim jones really dude?? d channels like vsauce also started small... everything doesn't grow at just an instant... it takes a lot of time n effort 2 develope n expand ur business/career/empire/anything... P.S. this channel brings new stuff n that's what makes it unique...

+jim jones n plus... if u think he didn't do a good job at explaining it... then maybe u should try once.. :)

+Shivee star ikr, VSauce started off as a clickbait channel with a ton perverted content

+Stefan Travis The paradox would be "which one is right? the average or the divided statistics?", but since he presented the average as wrong from the beginning it was not presented as a paradox.

+Stefan Travis The word "paradox" is much more likely to get noticed on youtube. It may be inaccurate, but technically it is partially your fault. ;)

+Stefan Travis" *Paradox*: a statement that, despite sound reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory." so calling technically true statements about a statistic that contradicts with the real big picture is a paradox.

+Dotz So we begin from the assumption that (A) 44.2% of male applicants get accepted and derive the correllary that (B) 34.5% of female applicants get accepted. Do we? No. There is no "leading to a conclusion" here, thus no paradox by your definition. Both statements are "technically true" but misleading without a bigger picture - what are known as factoids. As it happens, the two factoids are incompatible if you don't _know_ they're factoids.

***** There's no point in trying really hard to sound smart when you don't make any sense, why would one piece of data be the conclusion of another piece of data, and factoid either mean a trivial fact or a made up fact (I had to look it up :P), not whatever you just said... Anyways I know you know I'm right so there's no point in explaining myself again.

+Bite Size Psych it's been tagged as political and the feminazis are after you

+Bite Size Psych it's been tagged as political and the feminazis are after you

I'm getting the feeling that you've read Daniel Kahneman's book.

I'm so glad I found your channel. I'm learning so much *new stuff* from you and it's gotten so rare that I find new information on youtube. I feel like a lot of channels have maybe exhausted a good chunk of their knowledge and a lot of others are just copying old topics to get the view count up with minimal effort, but your channel is full of info I haven't seen anywhere else before. Having found you on here has so much value to me, I really need to thank you for all the work you're putting into your videos.

You are really stupid if you believe giving one point ot each political block makes bias magically disappear. In fact, if you want to get conspiratorial about it, the first example is flattering to women, whereas the second example is clearly poorly discussed, taking 1 example of misinterpreting statistics, conclude with a new statistic, and then, without checking the new statistic for the 10 million other mistakes and distortions that are possible, invalidly concluding there is racial bias in the (US I assume) justice system. But neither of that is actually my point. Transparancey comes from owning and explaining your bias. BiteSizePsychology is clearly left wing. (Which you can easily show with the methods shown in his own videos). That does not bother me one bit. He has every right to be. In fact, he has no chance at all to not be biased. That is not simply empirically impossible, it is metaphysicall and logically impossible. You cannot think of any possible world in which an unbased subject could have *any* opion. You need bias, otherwise you don't give a shit about anything. Why talk about statistics? We not talk about semigroups? They are boring and mathematically uninteresting, but that's not an objective criteria. Why only study other mathematical constructs because we are biased, which is very very good and neccessary thing. Now the videos would be better if he would be more *transparent* with his bias. Instead of intentionally or unintionally fooling people like you. Regardless, he has a right to his bias and he cannot be "unbiased", that does exist. Every choice, from the fontsize, to the topic, to the examples, to music, to the words is an expression of bias. There is not escaping from that.

Your comment implies that BSP ever claimed he was free of bias. Which he doesn't - his videos, to me, actually imply very much that he is aware of his own biases and puts effort into not only questioning them himself, but also encourages us to question him. Why else would he make so many videos talking about bias and scepticism? Or create a whole series around the concept of shifting his pov as much as he can into the opposite of what he would normally believe? I don't think that he is truly, perfectly neutral, but as you mentioned, nobody is. However, BSP at least puts a lot of effort into helping to understand different perspectives and checking one's own regularly. There are so many liberals and activists who are not able to provide that. So I still think these videos help me a lot to make sure I don't let my brain wilt in an echo chamber, you know?

Arthur O'Brien; It must be an awful world where literally everything you view must first be filtered through a lense of 'Agrees with my preconceptions or doesn't' and 'Is this right wing or left wing'

Poizen '87 I feel no pain about being seen like that by a simpleton. The idea of neutrality is irrational. If you can't fathom how somebody can come to that conclusion, that's not anybodys concern. Think about what beer to drink next instead. No irony. That's totally fine with me. Not everybody has to be interested in how we form our ideas.

I don't know why you're calling me a simpleton and accusing me of something I never argued. Of course the expectation of neutrality is unreasonable- it's completely irrational as you describe. But your original comment gave the impression you first filter information through a 'right vs left' lens before assessing the veracity of the argument itself. It's fine enough to analyze things politically, but Christ, 'is the argument valid vs. invalid' should be subservient to 'is this a right or left wing position', not the other way around. Be skeptical- but don't be skeptical simply because something disagrees with your preconceived notions. Your posturing is frankly hilarious to me. I've come to notice those who jump to such attacks often have less qualifications than I and are simply insecure about their own intellectual prowess. Since you assume yourself more educated than I am; tell me, where did you get your Masters? Your PhD? In what fields? What was your thesis? It's not my style to brag about education, as I believe it a privilege to be grateful for rather than an achievement to lord over others, but maybe it'll teach you not to assume things about others.

you have 37 likes :S

All women have been raped if we only count the ones that got raped 😉

They cant be molded, only misinterpreted and misunderstood.

+Draw Curiosity Thanks for telling me. I've fixed the link now

You're welcome! :) Great video as always by the way (I just thought you'd appreciate knowing that and went straight to it! :P)

+Bite Size Psych The link is still not working. I think the problem is that the entire URL is not being linked for some reason. Try using a URL shortener, it might work.

+Rishabh Daga Hmm, it was working for me when they said they changed it. soundcloud.com/imhunterandimarapper :)

+Eduardo Felipe manda mensagem pro cara diretamente

Google it. Go to a library. Ask someone that knows. Can't tell you A platform of statistics but hope I helped a little bit XD

+rex sneax I found a couple of interesting resources one is Khan Academy (www.khanacademy.org/math/probability) another was this great document made by the UK gov (www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04944.pdf). I highly encourage anybody who finds any other interesting resources to share them with others.

John was better most of the time but when Kim was better she was way better than John, bloosting her average

Boosting*

0:49 check the acceptance rates.

Doesn't he have an entire video on not trusting advice from successful people? I haven't watched it yet, but it seems like that might have commentary for this question.

***** Yeah he does I recall seeing it. Didn't grasp the concepts that deeply but maybe it does.

Careful not to commit the fallacy fallacy. I'm still on the fence about the wage gap but the fallacy fallacy is a bitch

Zachary Taylor Try to apply logic to the problem. If women were paid less for the exactly same work, Wouldn't it be ideal for any employer to hire women only, or at least to the highly paid possitions? He would pay them less and spare a ton of cash, right? No my friend. Wage gap is a horseshit, it has been debunked many times over. Fallacy fallycy is a bitch, but you should not take anything feminists say too seriously.

1) You have a point. Let's come up with a more objective dicrimination based on a SAT score. According to admissions.berkeley.edu/studentprofile: 75 % of admitted students have SAT Math score 660 or higher while only 25% of admitted students have SAT Math score lower than 660. That is discrimination towards students who have low SAT Math score. Of course the case is made up.This is just to show that it is formally possible and actually quite easy to come up with different kinds of absurd forms of discrimination. The discrimination that seems more real that I noticed along the way is towards international students. Admit Rate: In-state applicants: 21.3% with average SAT = 2045 International: 8.2% with average SAT = 2182 So it is harder to get admitted as an international. Moreover, there is open discrimination by setting the admission fees higher for international students: admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/how-to-apply/application-fees/ U.S. applicants: $70 International students: $80 Where are all the people fighting against discrimination? Here there is the real case. 2) I meant that applicant with name can claim he is being discrimined against the applicant with name with percentages 0% against 100%. I understand the math beyond statistical significance but people in the courts/lawyers/feminists most likely don't.

Your speakers might be messed up. Sounds pretty full to me

Yes, there is no data for "hardness" of a course. Hard for whom? What does "hard" even mean?

I see what you did

I don't think we've reached 8 billion population yet.

hasen195 True XD but its just an example

What does that mean? In the case of some people, that could put them at an unfair disadvantage. Some people (many people) need to be treated differently in order for them to have a better chance of resources to match those with unfair advantages.

+JE Hoyes Of course, including those circumstances

+TomHasVideo from the voice it's clear he's of East Asian origin(most likely Chinese) living in Australia

tytube3001 Yeah, he's definitely Australian.

+TomHasVideo His accent sounded more South African to me, but I'm a filthy American lol

MrC0MPUT3R Americans are so crap when it comes to accents and geography.

MrC0MPUT3R Yeah but, like, I wanted to know his name, and what he does, and stuff.

+Cherished Shield Duck shut up Mr.Duck

+Cherished Shield Duck ????????????

+Cherished Shield Duck seems somebody didn't see d sarcasm in my comment..

+Cyan Pluss They are just showing how statistics can mislead...