3 ms·

Seems to be the statistics equivalent of gerrymandering.

• abtinf 7y ago
  Gerrymandering is an intentional act to achieve specific outcome. Simpson's Paradox can strike even the most committed truth-seeker trying to understand and interpret the available data. Edit to add: Simpson's Paradox could conceivably thwart a gerrymanderer if they have an erroneous model relating demographics to voting patterns.
  • marzell 7y ago
    This is all true.. However what I meant is that the way gerrymandering can indicate a winner that is not the majority choice, is quasi analogous to how the Simpson's paradox exemplifies a weighed average that disagrees with the subtotals of the data.
    • abtinf 7y ago
      Oh, I see—you mean from the perspective of the voter/pundit/analyst/politician trying to understand what an election means and their mandate for action. Sort of like the debate over electoral vs popular vote. I hadn’t thought about it that way or seen the word gerrymandering used in that way, but it makes sense.
• Tarq0n 7y ago
  One interesting aspect to Simpson's paradox it that it's not straightforward which perspective is the more valid one, by groups or combined. One example in which the combined perspective is the valid one is election results (it is possible to win a higher percentage of votes in multiple areas, yet lose the overall vote).