This was still a bit on my mind, so came back to amend / improve on prior comment (though, seems not much interest in it, still wanted to better fill it out):

This was still a bit on my mind, so came back to amend / improve on prior comment (though, seems not much interest in it, still wanted to better fill it out): There are two "classic" issues in these sorts of cases, in terms of statistics. One is the "base rate" I mentioned before, the other is "conditional probabilities". I.e., Bayes' rule (or theorem) etc. These are intimately intertwined, generally. The issue is: if you're trying to make a (statistical) inference, it, much like sentences in writing (among other things), needs to be appropriately "contextualized". So, for example, you might be able to "find something" ... "interesting" ... (or infer / "say" something) in the XKCD example mentioned by another commenter, if you were looking at ratios - for example, (number of "Martha Stewart Living" subscribers) / (number of people). Then, at least, you have something other than just a sample straight from the "base heatmap" (population). Now, if you want to look at those subscribers, and consumers of "furry porn" (or whatever - just following the XKCD set up, here), then, you want to look at things like P(a | b) where a = "subscriber to Martha Stewart Living" and b = "consumer of furry porn" (and, P(a | b) means "the usual" - probability of "subscriber to Martha Stewart Living" GIVEN "consumer of furry porn"). Bayes' rule, and other "transformations" available (i.e., that are valid - that are "Theorems"), help you to find ways to compute such statistics (importantly, under CERTAIN assumptions [specified in the statements of the theorems, underlying propositions, etc. - and generally explained in stats textbooks]). Finally, and this probably prompted returning to write this comment more even than what I just wrote - you don't HAVE to be "formally trained" at all to 'get' this kind of stuff, of course (though most people end up with some kind of 'muddle' / fuzzy thinking without). One of my favorite examples of someone more clever than me (IMO - who seems to have gotten it without "formal" training / consideration / exploration / ...) is Bill Burr: https://youtu.be/ylHisHlMWQQ https://youtu.be/ylHisHlMWQQ