5 ms·

I swear dude. I cannot understand just why it is that the average person seems to be so incapable at understanding statistics and large numbers. It's mind bogg

by s5300 5y ago

I swear dude. I cannot understand just why it is that the average person seems to be so incapable at understanding statistics and large numbers. It's mind boggling. Ever since my freshman engineering stats class, it's like everywhere I look at where there's stupid bullshit happening, a large reason as to why the stupid bullshit is happening is because people have zero understanding of statistics and large numbers. It's always been incredibly intuitive to me as somebody schooled in the US public education system, and I wasn't even good at math until college because the school teachers were just terrible at teaching actual concepts. And like, I know that I am very much nothing special. But to too damn many people, it just seems to completely blow over their heads...

pessimizer 5y ago
Statistics are not intuitive, and it's the assumption that they are that leads people into error.
- s5300 5y ago
  No, not all statistics are intuitive, definitely a reason why there's statistics, and then engineering statistics in most colleges. However, the simpler parts/beginning of either course... really do seem like they should be intuitive to anybody who made it with a D through middle school math. Basic applied ratios and such. Like the fact near 5 billion covid vaccines have been administered worldwide now and there are still people vehemently arguing about the horrible things that are going to happen to them specifically if they get a vaccine...
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    > there are still people vehemently arguing about the horrible things that are going to happen to them specifically if they get a vaccine... Can you make a steel man argument on their behalf? Or is that so preposterous that it beneath you and wouldn’t waste your time on that? Because I’m starting to wonder if people with strong opinions like yours seems to be really are any different than the true believers on “the other side”. Or if you just feel confident in your echo chamber as “unquestionably right” because you (or I) aren’t questioned. I find the more I know about a topic the less I make absolutes like the one I quoted. You can’t make legitimate arguments against the covid vaccines? Shouldn’t we all be able to?
    - s5300 5y ago
      What?
baybal2 5y ago
I can say so for politics. Average Americans don't understand American politics. To me, the transition from Bush to Obama was paradoxal. One thing, Obama marketed himself as a change man, as well pretty much everybody. It's very generic. On the other side, his true colours weren't even hidden, his electoral programme told very candidly about his national security views, views on civil rights, and etc for which he got flak later. If I haven't seen the name, and explicitly liberal branding on these electoral materials, I could've said it's coming from a conservative, doctrinaire statist very much like Bush. The point is people are angry at Obama exactly on the points they elected him for.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  My impression was that Obama wanted to be more progressive-- domestically if not internationally. But he got derailed spending 2 years of a supermajority on a single issue (healthcare) partly because more centrist democrats objected to the more progressive ideas, and partly due to special interests. After the midterms he had little chance at passing more progressive policies, leaving a fairly centrist foreign policy agenda.
  - cjsplat 5y ago
    First, the ACA passed in March 2010, so not really 2 years on health care. The tweaks folded into reconciliation were not a major distraction. Second, if by super-majority you mean filibuster-proof, then in reality this was nowhere near 2 years. Al Franken (the 60th vote) was not seated until the court challenges finished on June 30th. Ted Kennedy died August 25. So that is about 8 weeks of super-majority. Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24, and Scott Brown took over on February 5th. So a little over 4 more months. That is a total of about 6 calendar months of filibuster proof majority. A glance at the legislative calendar shows a total of a little over 110 total Senate legislative days, out of a total of about 350 legislative days in 2009/2010. So in reality, Obama had a filibuster proof majority for about 1/3 of his first 2 years.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
bumby 5y ago
I don’t think we evolved to think about statistics in an intuitive manner. I think we tended to think more causally and with computationally less intensive heuristics. Asking most people about the birthday problem veridical paradox is a quick way to illustrate this. I would also argue it’s why humans are bad at estimating risks regarding low probability events. See: spacecraft mishaps that seem obvious in hindsight

by s5300 5y ago

pessimizer 5y ago

Statistics are not intuitive, and it's the assumption that they are that leads people into error.

s5300 5y ago
No, not all statistics are intuitive, definitely a reason why there's statistics, and then engineering statistics in most colleges. However, the simpler parts/beginning of either course... really do seem like they should be intuitive to anybody who made it with a D through middle school math. Basic applied ratios and such. Like the fact near 5 billion covid vaccines have been administered worldwide now and there are still people vehemently arguing about the horrible things that are going to happen to them specifically if they get a vaccine...
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  > there are still people vehemently arguing about the horrible things that are going to happen to them specifically if they get a vaccine... Can you make a steel man argument on their behalf? Or is that so preposterous that it beneath you and wouldn’t waste your time on that? Because I’m starting to wonder if people with strong opinions like yours seems to be really are any different than the true believers on “the other side”. Or if you just feel confident in your echo chamber as “unquestionably right” because you (or I) aren’t questioned. I find the more I know about a topic the less I make absolutes like the one I quoted. You can’t make legitimate arguments against the covid vaccines? Shouldn’t we all be able to?
  - s5300 5y ago
    What?

baybal2 5y ago

I can say so for politics. Average Americans don't understand American politics. To me, the transition from Bush to Obama was paradoxal. One thing, Obama marketed himself as a change man, as well pretty much everybody. It's very generic. On the other side, his true colours weren't even hidden, his electoral programme told very candidly about his national security views, views on civil rights, and etc for which he got flak later. If I haven't seen the name, and explicitly liberal branding on these electoral materials, I could've said it's coming from a conservative, doctrinaire statist very much like Bush. The point is people are angry at Obama exactly on the points they elected him for.

ineedasername 5y ago
My impression was that Obama wanted to be more progressive-- domestically if not internationally. But he got derailed spending 2 years of a supermajority on a single issue (healthcare) partly because more centrist democrats objected to the more progressive ideas, and partly due to special interests. After the midterms he had little chance at passing more progressive policies, leaving a fairly centrist foreign policy agenda.
- cjsplat 5y ago
  First, the ACA passed in March 2010, so not really 2 years on health care. The tweaks folded into reconciliation were not a major distraction. Second, if by super-majority you mean filibuster-proof, then in reality this was nowhere near 2 years. Al Franken (the 60th vote) was not seated until the court challenges finished on June 30th. Ted Kennedy died August 25. So that is about 8 weeks of super-majority. Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24, and Scott Brown took over on February 5th. So a little over 4 more months. That is a total of about 6 calendar months of filibuster proof majority. A glance at the legislative calendar shows a total of a little over 110 total Senate legislative days, out of a total of about 350 legislative days in 2009/2010. So in reality, Obama had a filibuster proof majority for about 1/3 of his first 2 years.
  - ineedasername 5y ago

bumby 5y ago

I don’t think we evolved to think about statistics in an intuitive manner. I think we tended to think more causally and with computationally less intensive heuristics. Asking most people about the birthday problem veridical paradox is a quick way to illustrate this. I would also argue it’s why humans are bad at estimating risks regarding low probability events. See: spacecraft mishaps that seem obvious in hindsight