People can't interpret statistics

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

Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,775
Location: Ohio, USA

23 Feb 2014, 7:13 pm

I think that was meant to be a joke. I am pretty sure that s/he knows very well that the children listening to Mozart did not have anything to do with their diagnosis of ADHD/NVLD and ASD.

It did give them early exposure to good music, though. That's a positive thing however way you look at it. By all means, play Mozart for your baby! It's nice to listen to, interesting to think about, and probably calming to a bored infant who's tired of staring at the same old mobile.

_________________
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com

Autism Memorial:
http://autism-memorial.livejournal.com

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

23 Feb 2014, 7:18 pm

90% of statistics are made up.

:lol:

Marybird
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,818

23 Feb 2014, 7:29 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

90% of statistics are made up.

:lol:

I don't agree with that; But statistically, the larger the populations used to calculate the statistics, the more accurate the statistics will be.

daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

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

23 Feb 2014, 7:34 pm

Callista wrote:

I think that was meant to be a joke. I am pretty sure that s/he knows very well that the children listening to Mozart did not have anything to do with their diagnosis of ADHD/NVLD and ASD.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was a joke too. I thought it was funny.

Niall
Velociraptor

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, 7:52 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:

Callista wrote:

I think that was meant to be a joke. I am pretty sure that s/he knows very well that the children listening to Mozart did not have anything to do with their diagnosis of ADHD/NVLD and ASD.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was a joke too. I thought it was funny.

I sincerely hope so, after her comments on "subjective observation".

There are, as others have pointed out, a frightening number of people out there who use one example to contradict scientific study.

That doesn't mean all studies are good studies. In this case, the "Mozart Effect" seems to have been somewhat overstated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect

Meanwhile, I have to persuade my shrink that one study with a sample of 27 does not constitute a solid conclusion.

:roll:

_________________
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.

daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

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

23 Feb 2014, 8:11 pm

Niall wrote:

That doesn't mean all studies are good studies. In this case, the "Mozart Effect" seems to have been somewhat overstated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect

I know! This was the entirety of my original post about the Mozart effect:

daydreamer84 wrote:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!! ! Rolling Eyes 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.

Though I agree with Callista that playing music for infants is probably a good idea anyway just because it will make be a nice relaxing environment for them.

Niall
Velociraptor

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, 8:25 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:

Niall wrote:

That doesn't mean all studies are good studies. In this case, the "Mozart Effect" seems to have been somewhat overstated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect

I know! This was the entirety of my original post about the Mozart effect

Oh, I realise that you know that. My point is that there are people who don't, or pretend not to because there is money in Mozart CDs,

As the OP correctly points out, that kind of thing is a major problem.

I would add that it is not just a case of people not being able to interpret statistics, but there are too many cases of statistics being used to deliberately mislead (see just about every politician in existence) or overstating uncertainty for some sort of gain (see climate disruption deniers for the most egregious example of this).

One might suspect that those children who have since been raised listening to Mozart as a result of this study might be less intelligent than their peers. After all, heredity counts, and being raised by scientifically illiterate parents won't help.

I lack, of course, any study supporting this conclusion.

InThisTogether
Veteran
Veteran

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

23 Feb 2014, 8:55 pm

Niall wrote:

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:

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.

Honestly, I think you look for reasons to fight. Do you see I started my whole statement with LOL? Followed by eye rolling?

IOW, I am laughing at the whole thing.

It seems to me that you are very selective in what you read, because if you read a single thing I have said, I AGREE WITH YOU! CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION!

Sheesh! Enough already!

_________________
Mom to 2 exceptional atypical kids
Long BAP lineage

InThisTogether
Veteran
Veteran

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

23 Feb 2014, 8:56 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

90% of statistics are made up.

:lol:

Love it!

_________________
Mom to 2 exceptional atypical kids
Long BAP lineage

Niall
Velociraptor

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, 9:04 pm

InThisTogether wrote:

Niall wrote:

InThisTogether wrote:

daydreamer84 wrote:

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

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

In the context of you defending "subjective observation" I don't know what to conclude. I took it as you laughing at the idea because your kids contradict the study (subjective observation).

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

23 Feb 2014, 9:31 pm

Niall wrote:

daydreamer84 wrote:

Niall wrote:

That doesn't mean all studies are good studies. In this case, the "Mozart Effect" seems to have been somewhat overstated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_effect

I know! This was the entirety of my original post about the Mozart effect

One of the best indicators of educational performance is how engaged with their children's education a parent is.

A parent that plays Mozart to their child is probably likely to do a lot of things that will actually help their children too (such as hiring a private tutor). Therefore, I hypothesise that the "Mozart babies" will still outperform their peers.

I likewise lack any study supporting that conclusion.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,154
Location: temperate zone

23 Feb 2014, 11:33 pm

daydreamer84 wrote:

Marky9 wrote:

Great examples!

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

Agreed.

Fifty percent of Americans are below average at understanding statistics!

But if they all took those courses than all 100 percent of americans would be in the top ten percent of Americans - at understanding statistics!

Atleast!

daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 Feb 2014, 12:06 am

naturalplastic wrote:

daydreamer84 wrote:

Marky9 wrote:

Great examples!

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

Agreed.

Of course, only 14% of all people know that! <<< joking, assuming she was joking too.

mouthyb
Deinonychus

Joined: 5 Aug 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 323
Location: Somewhar dusty and hot.

24 Feb 2014, 1:32 am

The one that gets me is the people who say (essentially) that because statistics gives you things like confidence intervals and +/- error, the results don't 'count', whatever that means. Because we all know it's more 'precise' to give a single number without any sort of compensation for error. :roll:

_________________
RAADS-R: 181
Eye Expression Test: 19
Alexithymic: Please explain conclusions if asked

The feels are shipped in by train once a week--Friday, I'm in love.

linatet
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 Feb 2014, 2:34 am

naturalplastic wrote:

daydreamer84 wrote:

Marky9 wrote:

Great examples!

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

Agreed.

InThisTogether
Veteran
Veteran

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

24 Feb 2014, 7:10 pm

Niall wrote:

In the context of you defending "subjective observation" I don't know what to conclude. I took it as you laughing at the idea because your kids contradict the study (subjective observation).

Yes, my kids do contradict the study, but not in the way predicted! :wink:

I have stated that sometimes subjective observation is correct. Are you saying that you do not agree?

I also believe that correlation does not imply causation. However, sometimes correlation IS due to causation. Are you saying you do not agree?

I have also stated that lack of scientific "proof" of something is not equivalent to proof of it's non-existence. Are you saying you do not agree?

Edited to add: I believe it is equally fallacious and dangerous to stick too closely to sayings like "correlation does not imply causation" because I think one can too readily dismiss the possibility that sometimes correlation is the direct result of causation. Likewise, I think it is a dangerous assumption to assume that because research has failed to demonstrate some sort of phenomenon, that the phenomenon itself doesn't exist. Both of these "mistakes" can lead one to the wrong conclusion without a detailed examination of the available evidence.

_________________
Mom to 2 exceptional atypical kids
Long BAP lineage

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

Jump to:

People can't interpret statistics Post Reply New Topic

People can't interpret statistics