4 ms·

I can't help but laugh. Make the slightest mention of statistics broken down by race, and the same publication that is despairing of how people no longer trust

by deogeo 7y ago

I can't help but laugh. Make the slightest mention of statistics broken down by race, and the same publication that is despairing of how people no longer trust statistics, would be finding innumerable reasons why those statistics are invalid.

commandlinefan 7y ago
Hey now, in the Guardian's defense, it's not as if any world government has ever been caught lying and misrepresenting facts to its population in the past.
bpodgursky 7y ago
/cue handwringing op-ed about biased AI algorithms
jayd16 7y ago
Why does that make you laugh? Your take away should not be "well clearly everything someone calls stats should be supported". The article is about how stats are becoming dismissed before examination, not that they shouldn't be scrutinized.
- deogeo 7y ago
  And that all the examples given of uneducated masses distrusting statistics just happen to align with the Guardian's pet causes is of course pure coincidence. Really, that's the perfect example of why statistics are distrusted - only those statistics that align with someone's agenda get presented. And sometimes, they're not even gathered in the first place: https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stats-on-ethnic-background-and-crime https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stat...
  - jayd16 7y ago
    You're describing a separate phenomenon from what the article is about. Poking at statistics with biased/politically motivated effort is not the same thing as dismissing the field of statistics entirely. The article is not suggesting that statistics should not be scrutinized.
- vanniv 7y ago
  I guess the point is that, when the statistics support their political bent, they decry people questioning the validity of them, and consider not blindly accepting them as being proof of the idiocy of the reader. But, give them statistics that go against their pre-ordained narrative, and suddenly it is the reader who doesn't immediately refute the statistics who is the uneducated rube.

by deogeo 7y ago

commandlinefan 7y ago

Hey now, in the Guardian's defense, it's not as if any world government has ever been caught lying and misrepresenting facts to its population in the past.

bpodgursky 7y ago

/cue handwringing op-ed about biased AI algorithms

jayd16 7y ago

Why does that make you laugh? Your take away should not be "well clearly everything someone calls stats should be supported". The article is about how stats are becoming dismissed before examination, not that they shouldn't be scrutinized.

deogeo 7y ago
And that all the examples given of uneducated masses distrusting statistics just happen to align with the Guardian's pet causes is of course pure coincidence. Really, that's the perfect example of why statistics are distrusted - only those statistics that align with someone's agenda get presented. And sometimes, they're not even gathered in the first place: https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stats-on-ethnic-background-and-crime https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stat...
- jayd16 7y ago
  You're describing a separate phenomenon from what the article is about. Poking at statistics with biased/politically motivated effort is not the same thing as dismissing the field of statistics entirely. The article is not suggesting that statistics should not be scrutinized.
vanniv 7y ago
I guess the point is that, when the statistics support their political bent, they decry people questioning the validity of them, and consider not blindly accepting them as being proof of the idiocy of the reader. But, give them statistics that go against their pre-ordained narrative, and suddenly it is the reader who doesn't immediately refute the statistics who is the uneducated rube.