an eloquent, terse critique of the use of statistics. i have held this opinion for a while myself.
i admit my feeble brain struggles with statistics, but i’ve put effort towards learning what i can. statistics itself has limitations, but is an incredibly useful tool.
it has, however, been adapted to fit social, political, or other non-objective (or non-neutral) ends. stats can reveal a whole lot about data and what it represents in the “real-world,” but is more easily abusable by vested interests.
“stats” in the public eye are a weapon. they trump all. but they are so often used to assert an established position, rather than form the basis of that stance. and even this is generous, as most “stats” are misleading, incomplete, manipulated, or methodically flawed.
we have a ridiculous relationship to stats, one based primarily on ignorance.
Thanks for your balanced reply which is no doubt correct.
I come from a background where stats are used to research and justify change within a business setting. I used and sought their validity to then implement improvements on a daily basis. I know their value well but believe that, overwhelmingly, their validity belongs within very restricted and restrictive areas of endeavour.
As you well say, 'their adaptation to fit social and political scenarios' is most often subjective and self-interested.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment again. It's appreciated.
“their validity belongs within very restricted and restrictive areas of endeavour” - that’s exactly it. it’s a bit of a debacle because their use must be limited, as even if generalities can be drawn out, they are not necessarily universal. and data alone is basically useless to us; it must be purposeful in social settings.
i’m not anti-data. i’m more skeptical of its perceived godlike status in certain realms, especially those that are difficult to quantify, such as education.
Yes, I agree. My principal concern is in how they affect, despite their lack of real/personal validity, the behaviour of many of us (myself included). We often discard something based on a statistic or accept someone saying something or something being said because we are shown a statistic that is meant 'to prove the point' when, in fact, the stat has little or no relation to our personal position other than an illustrated (pictures of graphs, etc usually accompany them) mental association.
It's a complex area but remaining alert is important I believe, since the wave of information (stats and all) can be so overwhelming.
an eloquent, terse critique of the use of statistics. i have held this opinion for a while myself.
i admit my feeble brain struggles with statistics, but i’ve put effort towards learning what i can. statistics itself has limitations, but is an incredibly useful tool.
it has, however, been adapted to fit social, political, or other non-objective (or non-neutral) ends. stats can reveal a whole lot about data and what it represents in the “real-world,” but is more easily abusable by vested interests.
“stats” in the public eye are a weapon. they trump all. but they are so often used to assert an established position, rather than form the basis of that stance. and even this is generous, as most “stats” are misleading, incomplete, manipulated, or methodically flawed.
we have a ridiculous relationship to stats, one based primarily on ignorance.
Thanks for your balanced reply which is no doubt correct.
I come from a background where stats are used to research and justify change within a business setting. I used and sought their validity to then implement improvements on a daily basis. I know their value well but believe that, overwhelmingly, their validity belongs within very restricted and restrictive areas of endeavour.
As you well say, 'their adaptation to fit social and political scenarios' is most often subjective and self-interested.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment again. It's appreciated.
“their validity belongs within very restricted and restrictive areas of endeavour” - that’s exactly it. it’s a bit of a debacle because their use must be limited, as even if generalities can be drawn out, they are not necessarily universal. and data alone is basically useless to us; it must be purposeful in social settings.
i’m not anti-data. i’m more skeptical of its perceived godlike status in certain realms, especially those that are difficult to quantify, such as education.
Yes, I agree. My principal concern is in how they affect, despite their lack of real/personal validity, the behaviour of many of us (myself included). We often discard something based on a statistic or accept someone saying something or something being said because we are shown a statistic that is meant 'to prove the point' when, in fact, the stat has little or no relation to our personal position other than an illustrated (pictures of graphs, etc usually accompany them) mental association.
It's a complex area but remaining alert is important I believe, since the wave of information (stats and all) can be so overwhelming.