Page 1 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

linatet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2013
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 934
Location: beloved Brazil

23 Feb 2014, 11:47 am

Some real examples, I actually read those things and those misleading conclusions:
1) "average men is better with spatial skills than average women. This is a major obstacle for women that want to be engineers"
Come on! Even if men in average are better than women in average on spatial skills, it DOESN'T mean there aren't women with awesome spatial skills that can be awesome engineers. And I read this in a psychology magazine!

2) "relation between rape and police forces: After the police regained control on gang áreas rape reports increased 40%"
Really? An increase in rape reports DOESN'T mean an increase in rape ocurrence! Those are diferente things. Maybe for instance now that the State regained control women feel safer to report rapes. I read this in this famous newspaper...

3) "let your children spend time alone: researchs show relation between spending time alone and intelligence"
This one is really awful. Because two things seem to co-occur - alone time and intelligence, it DOESN'T mean alone time make people intelligent! Maybe people that are more intelligent spend more time thinking, or maybe something causes both, for instance introvertion etc. Now I imagine lots of mothers making their children spend time alone because they think they will be more intelligent.

4) "Doctors couldn't understand the man's disease recovery: it was a miracle from God"
I read this in a religious magazine. I don't mind religion but I mind when people don't do their logic homework :lol: There could be a million reasons why doctors couldn't understand his recovery, exam mistakes for instance. It's not like if someone can't answer something it was God. Also, Science can't explain everything, it doesn't mean there is no explanation, it only means we don't know it yet.

5) A last example, I was talking to my friend`s father and told him statistically women live longer than men. His answer: "that's not true, my mother died and my father is still alive" :roll:

It seems to me people are not logical or they come to conclusions based on common sense and subjective observations and regard those conclusions as true. For me in both cases this is plainly annoying.
Do you notice those things too? Is it the case we have better logic skills than other people?



corvuscorax
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 Apr 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 266
Location: Pontiac, MI

23 Feb 2014, 11:58 am

This is more of a problem with not thinking and getting shocked by something that sounds preposterous. Any decent research would show that such a fast conclusion is often very misleading.


_________________
IQ:134
AspieQuiz Score: 159
AQ: 43
"Don't be That One Aspie..."


Marky9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Mar 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,625
Location: USA

23 Feb 2014, 12:02 pm

Great examples!

I think a quick overview of Statistics 101 and Logic 101 should be required of everyone.

I swear it seems just required participation in a one-hour webinar on the above could save the world a lot of stress and anxiety due to faulty interpretations and reasoning.

Special emphasis could be placed on journalists participating in the training. ( I would say politicians but that would be pointless; they are going to interpret and present things in whatever way supports their position on issues.) :D



dianthus
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,138

23 Feb 2014, 12:39 pm

These are excellent examples of how people make faulty conclusions and leaps in logic, because they don't think things through properly. I notice this kind of thing all the time, in many ways other than how people interpret statistics.

I think some people on this forum are highly logical, but many seem not to be.



InThisTogether
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,709
Location: USA

23 Feb 2014, 12:55 pm

Those are great examples.

I think it is because people often take too many heuristics and it seems like in today's culture, there is a tendency to take what you read at face value and see it as true. If I had a dime for each time I've asked someone for a reference to support their opinion and they point me to a blog, I'd be rich! :)

In general, people are also subject to confirmation bias. . This is true of NTs and ASDs a like. So if you see data that supports your conclusion at face value, you adopt it and claim it "proves" your point. You don't look deeper because it is already consistent with your belief.

I also think that statistics can be manipulated to "prove" nearly anything. These are simplistic examples, but I have seen published research that is really just a fancier version of the same thing. You report only the parts of the data set that support your view and you carefully phrase things in a way that only the most keen of observers will notice what you have done. I know from personal experience. I once conducted extensive research on a topic (experimental design-type research), and while I could technically "find" data to (at least kind of) support my original hypothesis, a more detailed data analysis not only failed to support my original hypothesis, it uncovered pretty strong relationships that I had not even originally considered. But I could have probably written it up in a way that people who were not looking closely wouldn't have noticed. Especially since my hypothesis seemed rather intuitive.

I do not think it is a "we" - "they" thing, though. I know plenty of NTs who do not fall for statistical "tricks," and I have seen plenty of Aspies make statements that are supposedly based on "logic" and "statistics" that are simply....at best only partial truths, but mostly only opinions. To say that it is a "we" "they" thing implies that Aspies are logical and NTs are not, which is pretty much akin to the kind of thinking you are advocating against.

Edited to add: Then there is always the fact that sometimes common sense and subjective observation ARE true. It is errant to assume that because you have no "scientific evidence" that something is true, that it is necessarily then false. Absence of "proof" does not mean proof of non-existence.


_________________
Mom to 2 exceptional atypical kids
Long BAP lineage


yournamehere
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,673
Location: Roaming 150 square miles somewhere in north america

23 Feb 2014, 1:09 pm

I can make up statistics out of thin air too. Here is what you do. Take all the facts, and make up the rest. Conspiracy theorists do it too.



linatet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2013
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 934
Location: beloved Brazil

23 Feb 2014, 1:50 pm

Loved all answers!
I love WP so much!! It's the only place where I can be myself and talk about the things I like. If I go to someone in real life and say: "let's discuss statistics!" they are like: "shut up".

Marky9 wrote:
Great examples!

I think a quick overview of Statistics 101 and Logic 101 should be required of everyone.

I swear it seems just required participation in a one-hour webinar on the above could save the world a lot of stress and anxiety due to faulty interpretations and reasoning.

Special emphasis could be placed on journalists participating in the training. ( I would say politicians but that would be pointless; they are going to interpret and present things in whatever way supports their position on issues.) :D


:lol:

Quote:
Those are great examples.

I think it is because people often take too many heuristics and it seems like in today's culture, there is a tendency to take what you read at face value and see it as true. If I had a dime for each time I've asked someone for a reference to support their opinion and they point me to a blog, I'd be rich! Smile

In general, people are also subject to confirmation bias. . This is true of NTs and ASDs a like. So if you see data that supports your conclusion at face value, you adopt it and claim it "proves" your point. You don't look deeper because it is already consistent with your belief.

I also think that statistics can be manipulated to "prove" nearly anything. These are simplistic examples, but I have seen published research that is really just a fancier version of the same thing. You report only the parts of the data set that support your view and you carefully phrase things in a way that only the most keen of observers will notice what you have done. I know from personal experience. I once conducted extensive research on a topic (experimental design-type research), and while I could technically "find" data to (at least kind of) support my original hypothesis, a more detailed data analysis not only failed to support my original hypothesis, it uncovered pretty strong relationships that I had not even originally considered. But I could have probably written it up in a way that people who were not looking closely wouldn't have noticed. Especially since my hypothesis seemed rather intuitive.

True.

Quote:
I do not think it is a "we" - "they" thing, though. I know plenty of NTs who do not fall for statistical "tricks," and I have seen plenty of Aspies make statements that are supposedly based on "logic" and "statistics" that are simply....at best only partial truths, but mostly only opinions. To say that it is a "we" "they" thing implies that Aspies are logical and NTs are not, which is pretty much akin to the kind of thinking you are advocating against.

I didn't make this question because I believe aspies are more logical, but to start some discussion. I have read lots of posts here of users saying we have better logical skills, empathising-systematizing theory etc.
I thought that if I just wrote the examples without making any questions there would be no discussion, people would be more like: "some misleading conclusions, so what?" :lol:

Quote:
Edited to add: Then there is always the fact that sometimes common sense and subjective observation ARE true. It is errant to assume that because you have no "scientific evidence" that something is true, that it is necessarily then false. Absence of "proof" does not mean proof of non-existence.

I know, I didn't say common sense and subjective observations are false, but that it annoys me that people assume right away they are absolutely true.
By your last sentence it seems you have some interest in philosophy of Science. If that's the case there is this post here http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt252133.html. I would love to hear your opinion!



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

23 Feb 2014, 2:28 pm

Statistics are not true for everyone because some women do live longer than a guy. Saying women live longer than men is saying all women do instead of "usually women live longer than men." That is something I have noticed my whole life that wives outlive their husbands but sometimes wives die before their husbands. Of course there are men that do live into their 80's or 90's and even 100's. I also find statistics tend to generalize and I know it's not true for everyone.

But I agree with Inthistogether, you can find anything to prove your point rather it's news articles or statistics or anecdotes or studies. You can even prove vaccines do cause autism because there has been studies about it and there has been studies that there is no link between vaccines and autism and there are anecdotes where someone changed after getting a vaccine and very few people with an ASD think they got their autism from it because that was when they started to show signs. So I find arguing and to prove your point pointless, same as being "right." People just go around in circles and I think 'okay, they have said their piece, they should be done with it already" but no they keep it going and then the drama gets old. Both parties think they are right so they are too busy with trying to prove each other wrong and also using analogies. And I thought aspies were known to do this but NTs do this too. I think it has to do with personality. Some people are more into debates than others so they get involved in these debates. I don't get involved because things have already been said I would have said so there is no point repeating it and it gets too overwhelming to be in a drama so I would rather sit back and watch it than be in it.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

23 Feb 2014, 3:20 pm

linatet wrote:
5) A last example, I was talking to my friend`s father and told him statistically women live longer than men. His answer: "that's not true, my mother died and my father is still alive" :roll:


Yeah, people don't seem to understand that statistics deal with averages and large numbers. They'll say things like "it can't be true that men are better than women at spatial tasks because I know some girls who are really good at spatial tasks." That doesn't refute a statistic showing that on average men tend to be better spatial tasks than women!



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

23 Feb 2014, 3:30 pm

Marky9 wrote:
Great examples!

I think a quick overview of Statistics 101 and Logic 101 should be required of everyone.


:lol: Agreed.



Mindslave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,034
Location: Where the wild things wish they were

23 Feb 2014, 3:34 pm

The examples you provided are flat declarative statements, without much wiggle room. Absolute statements like "Men live longer than women" are just asking for ridicule. And things like "Research shows a relation between alone time and intelligence" is begging for details. Some people are too insecure to say things with any degree of uncertainty.



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

23 Feb 2014, 3:43 pm

linatet wrote:
3) "let your children spend time alone: researchs show relation between spending time alone and intelligence"
This one is really awful. Because two things seem to co-occur - alone time and intelligence, it DOESN'T mean alone time make people intelligent! Maybe people that are more intelligent spend more time thinking, or maybe something causes both, for instance introvertion etc. Now I imagine lots of mothers making their children spend time alone because they think they will be more intelligent.


CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!! ! :roll: I've seen this one too. There was the "Mozart effect" a while back where programs for infants and toddlers included exposing them to Mozart's music and toys played his music because a study showed a link between listening to Mozart as a baby and high IQs later in life or something similar. The results weren't even replicated but even if they had been perhaps parents who played that music for their children tended to be more attentive or relaxed parents or from higher class backgrounds with more time to devote to trying to nurture their children in different ways. That's the third variable problem. It might really be the attentiveness of parents that causes the relationship (a third variable) rather than a direct link between the two variables Mozart music and intelligence. Then there's the directionality problem. Maybe children who were intelligent loved hearing Mozart and reacted well when their parents played his music so that prompted the parents to play it to them more often but playing it to a kid does't make them more intelligent. The relationship could work the other way around. So many things could be going on besides listening to Mozart causing the children to develop higher IQs.



InThisTogether
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,709
Location: USA

23 Feb 2014, 3:49 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:
There was the "Mozart effect" a while back where programs for infants and toddlers included exposing them to Mozart's music and toys played his music because a study showed a link between listening to Mozart as a baby and high IQs later in life


LOL! My kids listened to Mozart as infants/toddlers and what I got is one with ASD and one with NLD/ADHD! :twisted: :roll: :?


_________________
Mom to 2 exceptional atypical kids
Long BAP lineage


NotaHero
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 252
Location: Manchester

23 Feb 2014, 5:12 pm

You should read 'The Tiger That Isn't' by Michael Blastland which is a very interesting book about interpreting statistics and how to see past the mistakes and misinterpretation of others (Particularly by the Media)



alwaysnow
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 90

23 Feb 2014, 6:06 pm

Yes and it deeply annoys me when I find misleading conclusions like that, which happens all the time.

As long as your social/connecting skills are good, it doesn't matter that you are misleading millions of people by miserably failing at the very basics of your actual job: journalism being the prime example of these obnoxious tendencies.



Niall
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 478
Location: Forth Estuary Area, Western Palearctic Archipelago, Sol III, Orion Spur, Milky Way

23 Feb 2014, 6:33 pm

InThisTogether wrote:
daydreamer84 wrote:
There was the "Mozart effect" a while back where programs for infants and toddlers included exposing them to Mozart's music and toys played his music because a study showed a link between listening to Mozart as a baby and high IQs later in life


LOL! My kids listened to Mozart as infants/toddlers and what I got is one with ASD and one with NLD/ADHD! :twisted: :roll: :?


We have crossed paths on logic before, haven't we?

The fact that one study shows a link (not necessarily a causative link, just a link) between listening to Mozart and increased IQ does not mean that all children who listen to Mozart will end up geniuses! :wall:

I suppose this is where your "common sense and subjective observation" gets you.


_________________
Stuck on some pre-FTL rationality-forsaken mudball in the Orion Spur. Ecological collapse (dominant-species induced major extinction event) imminent. Requesting passage to any post-scarcity biological civ. Beacon status: ACTIVE. Can tell stories.