What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?
Wearing your seatbelt increases your chances of dying from cancer.
It increases your chance of drowning, but not for the reason people usually think.
This one is great! Made me think way too much
How?
You’ll live longer.
If you die from cancer you can’t die from a car wreck.
Other way around, for the purposes of this joke, but yes.
I don’t know if this counts, since it’s only a “true fact” if you are fine with carefully chosen words and the omission of crucial information…
But the 13-50 stat is dangerously misleading.
You know,
Black people make up 13% of the population, but 50% of the violent crime.
Black people in America do, in fact, make up 50% of the murder arrests according to FBI crime statistics
That much is true.
But certain people tend to use this fact to assert that police officers are far more likely to be killed by black people than by white people. Therefore, the stats that show them brutalizing black people at a higher rate – since they fall short of that 50% number – are evidence that they hold back around black people to avoid appearing racist.
The users of this stat heavily imply black people are more violent and murder-prone, and hence a greater threat. The argument also carries with it an implied benefit to eugenics or a return to slavery (to anyone paying attention.)
But no one using this stat ever explores potential causes for the arrest rate disparity, instead letting their viewers assume it comes from “black culture” (if they are closeted racists) or “bad genes” (if they are open racists).
There’s no attention paid to the fact that black people make up over half of overturned wrongful convictions
There’s no attention paid to the stats further down in that same FBI crime stats table that make it clear that black people make up 25% of the nation’s drug arrests, despite making up close to 13% of the US’s total drug users. (Their population’s rate of drug use is within a margin of error of white people’s rate of drug use). It should be strange that a small portion of the perpetrators of drug crimes make up such an outsized portion of the total drug arrests in this country. But the disparity doesn’t even get a mention.
There’s no attention paid to the fact that more than half of US murders go unsolved, meaning even assuming impartial sentencing and prosecution, we would only know black people committed 50% OF 50% of the murders – 25%. And in a country where 98% of the land is owned by white people and the public defender system is in shambles? Which demographic do you think would be able to afford the best defense, avoiding conviction even when guilty, and ending up overrepresented in the “unsolved murder” category? If only 50% of murders end in a conviction, that means every murderer who walks into a courtroom has a solid chance at getting away with it. Even more solid if the murderer belongs to the richest race. The murder arrest rate by race winds up just being a measure of which demographics can afford the best lawyers, rather than any proportional representation of each demographic’s tendencies.
They mention none of that. The people hawking this statistic intentionally lead their viewers to assume, “arrested for murder” is equivalent to “guilty of murder.” And that 50% of the murder arrests is equivalent to 50% of the total murders. The entire demographic is assumed to be more dangerous.
Excellent explanation, thanks.
My pleasure.
I’ve seen similar stuff multiple times, often with misquoted statistics. What many miss is that context is as important as stats.
This guy facts.
The real bottom line is that when you create an underclass of people whose neighborhoods get firebombed or bulldozed when they get too affluent (see e.g. “Black Wall Street” in Tulsa and Auburn Avenue (formerly “the richest Negro street in the world”) in Atanta, respectively) and had generations of absent fathers due to persecution for things like “vagrancy”, of course they’re going to stop giving a shit about laws that bind but do not protect them! It’s entirely rational that people systematically excluded from being able to get ahead while acting within the law, and whose behaviors are deliberately criminalized in order to target them, would end up committing crimes at higher rates than the people benefiting from their oppression did. In other words, even if it’s true that they actually commit crimes at higher rates (as opposed to being accused at higher rates or being less likely to avoid conviction, as you pointed out, which just make the statistical bias even worse by compounding on top), even that is disingenous because it ignores that the disparity is caused by classism and institutional racism, not anything intrinsic to their race itself. The fiction that it’s somehow their own fault is like a society-wide version of “stop hitting yourself.”
Oh 100% this. The main accomplishment of Tulsa and Auburn was keeping black people impoverished, and…
“About 60 [academic] papers show that a very common result of greater inequality is more violence, usually measured by homicide rates,” says Richard Wilkinson, author of The Spirit Level and co-founder of the Equality Trust. - source
For as long as society insists on high inequality with one race forcefully held at the bottom, no rational person can expect that race to be peaceful.
It’s just… I have a hard time bringing this concept to the table in a debate with people who believe “personal responsibility” can somehow magically indemnify society against its impact on people.
In fact, I am generally speechless when debating such people. It’s such an alien worldview to me. How can personal responsibility actually make society irrelevant? And since when?
The kinds of people who spout the 13-50 argument basically believe NOTHING society does can increase or decrease murder (except, when convenient, being “too soft on children” or “soft on crime.”)
The thing about this is that the kind of people who quote statistics like that typically don’t have an interest in all of that. They start with a racist assertion, then search for anything that appears to corroborate. They have no interest in actually understanding the statistic, they only care about it insofar as they believe it justifies their racism.
That, or they know it doesn’t and they’re purposely arguing in bad faith.
Yeah… that’s a pretty reasonable conclusion. It’s hard to just state outright though, when I live with the exact sort of person described in your comment.
It’s interesting: the people who are fine with calling an entire race murderous seem to take great umbrage at being considered “racist.”
It’s the r-word to them – a slur used to invalidate their concerns and diminish the importance of their well-being.
That their concerns ought to be invalidated – since they are the racist result of racist fear-mongering – is never well-received.
Omfg, thank you so much for this. I find it repulsive that pos 9gaggers post 50/13 as a mantra to every post that includes black people, but no one would really want to understand from where those numbers come up😡
The real bottom line is that when you create an underclass of people whose neighborhoods get firebombed or bulldozed when they get too affluent (see e.g. “Black Wall Street” in Tulsa and Auburn Avenue (formerly “the richest Negro street in the world”) in Atanta, respectively) and had generations of absent fathers due to persecution for things like “vagrancy”, of course they’re going to stop giving a shit about laws that bind but do not protect them! It’s entirely rational that people systematically excluded from being able to get ahead while acting within the law, and whose behaviors are deliberately criminalized in order to target them, would end up committing crimes at higher rates than the people benefiting from their oppression did. In other words, even if it’s true that they actually commit crimes at higher rates (as opposed to being accused at higher rates or being less likely to avoid conviction, as you pointed out, which just make the statistical bias even worse by compounding on top), even that is disingenous because it ignores that the disparity is caused by classism and institutional racism, not anything intrinsic to their race itself. The fiction that it’s somehow their own fault is like a society-wide version of “stop hitting yourself.”
The infamous FBI crime statistics are probably the big one
Which are you referring to? Some like murder are pretty reliable.
The current top-rated comment in this thread explains what they meant very well if you’re actually curious.
Despite being only 13% of the population…
Half of all murders go unsolved. So even if you assume the group making up 50% of the murder arrests is impossible to wrongfully convict, they would still only make up 25% of the murders that occurred because a whole 50% of the murders are a mystery.
And it would be insane to assume murder arrests are a perfect representative sample for all of the murders that occur in the entire United States.
Some demographics have more money and are more likely to be able to hire their own lawyers and get away with murder, even if they’re guilty. Other demographics have less money and are more often forced to rely on a broken public defender system.
It’s no coincidence that black people, one of the poorer demographics, are found in over 50% of exonerations for wrongful convictions despite being a much smaller portion of the US population.
Despite being only 13% of the population…
If you have a complicated health issue or emergency, the legislative branch of government dictates your potential treatment.
(Most reputable practitioners will temper their recommendations based upon the professional risk involved.)
Sometimes the best doctors have poor outcome rates.
Because they are often taking on the hardest cases.
50% of doctors graduated in the bottom half of their medical school.
This is maybe true in the US. Don’t forget that people from all over the world are on here.
Still holds true either way. If the doctor is or is not at great risk of legal consequences, it will greatly impact your care. I have a complicated case with lots of small spinal damage that all adds up to partial disability. All reputable neurosurgeons here spend five minutes reading the radiology summary from a MRI and walk away from anything that is not easy like my case. It is just too much legal liability to take on hard cases. If you live in a region where it is safer for the doctor to treat difficult cases with impunity, you will likely get better, or at least more, care. In the real world, the legal system plays a major role in medical treatments. No one is throwing away or risking their entire career on your case. Skipping context, your healthcare really is determined by Judges either way. Learning this the hard way sucks.
The introduction of seatbelt legislation lead to an increase in nonfatal vehicular injuries
Similarly, the introduction of metal helmets for soldiers corresponded with an increase of head injuries.
Ah, survivor bias. Reminds me of analysis of damage to bombers in WW2. Data showed most damage was done to the wings and body of planes. The tail, cockpit and engines were rarely damaged. They responded by reinforcing those areas that were frequently damaged.
However they were only observing bombers that made it back to base and so data on planes that were shot down was missing. Luckily someone did eventually realise this and so the research could be used as evidence that strikes to the areas rarely recorded indicated a downed plane.
Body armor in the second Gulf war contributed greatly to an increased rate of amputations on soldiers.
When metal helmets were introduced in the middle of WW1, head injuries went up!
test
Test back
those damn seatbelts!
Dihydrogen Monoxide, commonly used in laundry detergent and other cleaning supplies, is also present in Subway sandwiches
It can even be found in unborn babies!
FACT: 100% of people that consume Dihydrogen Monoxide die.
Wrong, a mortality of 94.5% has been shown not even close to 100%.
Please show me the data showing the data on pre-1900s populations proving that 100% of them consumed dihydrogen monoxide. You can’t do it.
One could say that people who haven’t died yet don’t have a cause of death yet so they can’t be counted.
Maybe we can agree on “100% of people who died consumed dihydrogen monoxide beforehand”.
Except for the ones that didn’t.
Everyone who has died has ingested dihydrogen monoxide.
They even put it into the water supply.
Evil!!
The large percent of traffic accidents that take place within 5 miles of home. Most people only cover a fairly small radius on a day to day basis so it makes sense if there is an accident, it’s close to home and not 80 miles away… just on average of how far how often you drive. Makes it seem like neighbourhoods are more dangerous than highways or something.
The only accident I have ever been in was 1300 kilometers from home…
Until today 👀
Alf kinda sus
Well I can’t recall the statistical percentage often cited but I’m sure it wasn’t 100% so it’s ok for it not to have been true for you. Sorry about your far from home accident.
Another factor is that people feel more comfortable driving their local roads and get used to usual traffic patterns, which could mean that they’re not as alert if something’s different.
Eg you’re almost home, in your neighborhood, and there’s a stop sign that almost never has anyone else there, so you might not look too much just roll through, the one time someone’s actually there.
that is actually an interesting way to think about it
This is such a good example for how statistics are often misinterpreted without any fault of the statistics itself.
It reminds me of when they looked at fighter jets to decide which parts to reinforce. So they examined which parts had the most bullet holes and came up with this statistic:
If some of you don’t knew about this yet, I let you decide why this effect is called “survivorship bias”. :D
There needs to be more education about how statistics need to be looked at in the correct context.
There are better examples of survivorship bias, but simce this one deals with war and comes with an easy to understand picture, people rarely remember the other examples so only this one ever gets posted.
Removed by mod
Add “As soon as possible” to that list as well.
Boss wants something ASAP and it probably means ithey want it very soon and not when you’re free
Removed by mod
Nice try, QI elf!
You’ve triple posted this comment…
In places where more storks live, you also have more babies.
After the Corona lockdowns there was an increase in infections with the common cold. Researches tried to explain how this is connected to the immune system and a lot of people now assume you have to “train” your immune system with exposure to pathogens. Or that your immune system falls out of training (like a muscle) if you stop exposing it to pathogens regularly. A potentially dangerous misunderstanding.
People often draw false conclusions from reduced information about a fact. For example: Babies who are kept in one position for hours each day over weeks or months show developmental delay. For some reason this information got shortened so much that a lot of people (in Germany at least) now assume baby seats are hurting babies backs.
Of the ~100 billion humans who have ever lived, about 8 billion (8%) are still alive today. Therefore, your chance of dying is 92%, not 100%.
Classic, but very illustrative
Wouldn’t that be the chance of any randomly selected person being dead?
Removed by mod
People reading this, aren’t you just a ray of sunshine with your 8% survival rate?
Are you assuming that everyone currently alive is immortal? You may be in for some disappointment.
We have no evidence they’re not. Statistically speaking, as many as 8% of humans are potentially immortal.
It’s common sense that if aging were solved tomorrow, it would be patented and the wealthiest 3% would enjoy much longer lives, while the working class wouldn’t see much change.
Incidentally, longer life would allow even more accumulation of money and power, making inequality worse.
Plus side: billionaires now consider climate change threat #1 and use many more resources to solve it compared to today, rather than only care about the next 40-50 years.
On the down side, they’d probably solve the climate crisis by spreading vaporised peons in the upper atmosphere to block some of the solar radiation.
We have no evidence they’re not. Statistically speaking, as many as 8% of humans are potentially immortal.
That’s what’s misleading about it.
Yeah, only about 8% of people currently living are immortal, so don’t get your hopes up.
People on HRT have a significantly higher mortality rate than people not on HRT
I don’t get it… I dumb.
HRT is short for Hormone Replacement Therapy, a treatment many transgender people use to feel more aligned with their gender identity. It’s been proven to increase mental health, and has a low regret rate. However, it is correlated with higher mortality because trans people overall have a higher mortality rate and HRT is primarily used by trans people.
A more extreme example of the same thing would be “People on chemotherapy have a higher chance of dying from cancer than people not on chemotherapy.” It’s true, but only because people without cancer don’t tend to enter chemotherapy.
Trans people on HRT may have a slightly higher mortality rate (the suicide rate declines significantly with HRT), but OPs statement is true because most people on HRT are cisgender and old - estrogen is a common treatment for menopause symptoms and products like androgel are specifically marketed to cis men with age related decline in testosterone.
My bad, I didn’t know HRT was a term used outside of transgender healthcare. Thank you for the info!
HRT was originally used to treat menopausal women at risk for osteoporosis, who are at higher risk due to being old.
I’m aware that transgenders also have a higher than otherwise expected mortality (whether taking hormones or not), but they may not be numerous enough to move the needle against millions of old women.
This one is great, I absolutely believe that conservatives would (and I’m sure do) pass it around like some profound statement.
In a similar vein, people on puberty blockers have a higher mortality rate.
(Because those medications are used in combination with other treatments to help treat certain cancers.)
Several (attempted) murderers have owned copies of The Catcher in the Rye.
I own a copy of The Catcher in the Rye.
Women have smaller brains than men.
I mean, yes. Women as a population are physically smaller than men as a population.
Women have smaller fingers than men. Smaller eyes. Smaller lungs. There is no “gotcha” that smaller skeletal frames with smaller skulls contain, by volume, a smaller organ.
Doesnt mean every man’s brain is larger than every woman’s brain either.
Doesn’t mean men are smarter than women.
It’s just a statistic, that while true, doesn’t imply what some people think it does.
Men have bigger balls is another missunderstood fact.
Gonna need a source on that claim
There’s actually some historical context for this untrue way of thinking.
France, 1873 Paul Broca, a French physician, decides to weigh some brains. And women’s brains weighed less than men’s brains. This is part of his research into crainiometry in which the size of the brain is used to understand a mesure of intelligence. Bigger brain weight = more smart.
We now recognize crainiometry as a pesudoscience.
Then another French academic Gustav Le Bon uses Broca’s research to further engain that not only are women’s brains small causing them to have the big dumb, women are in fact more similar to gorillas in brain size. Thus, women are uncivilized, akin to children, and MUST be under the care and control of men who are CLEARLY more intelligent with their big brains and, naturally, should control and run society.
Broca did not take overall body size or age of the specimens into account when originally weighing the brains. The male specimens were younger and larger to the female specimens who were smaller and older. Brains tend to shrink as we age.
So, not only was this flawed science, based in flawed measurements, thay have been readily disproved, we’re still struggling to undo this as a belief.
History rant over.
Many years ago I worked as an analyst at a small VC firm. My boss, who was a raging misogynist prick and liked to date College freshmen, LOVED this fact (and any other Manosphere bullshit he could find about women being inferior to men). He was such an unbelievable stereotype, he could have stepped out of a sitcom.
Yeah I mean, neanderthals had bigger brains than humans, and they were no smarter than we are (as far as we know.)
Also a blue whale’s brain is four times the size of a human brain and they don’t even know how to drive.
Their hearts are also like four times the size of the human body …but I don’t think they love us very much.
We don’t really know where blue whales go a lot of the time, so I think that’s a bit of an assumption there.
I’m assuming down.
It’s my pet hypothesis that people are drawn to the comfort of sitcom-level characters because they’re so basic and predictable, even when they’re terrible. Real life is so complicated that black-and-white thinking blasted by people like that is just so low-energy to consume.
It’s just more impressive that even with a bigger brain he is still a bumbling buffoon.
“Vending machines are more deadly than sharks”.
While it’s true that (at least for some years) more people are killed by vending machine accidents than shark attacks, your personal risk depends on what you do. If you’re a vending machine factory worker who never goes into the ocean, you’re far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. But if you live in a part of the world that doesn’t have vending machines and you swim in the ocean every day, the reverse is true.
However sharks have a huge PR issue and Spielberg regrets how Jaws is a big source of that
Wait, so you’re telling me that there are no vending machines in the ocean that are preying on people swimming in the water?
There may be, the ocean is deep and not thoroughly explored.
I think this is going to become a stock response for me
You’re scaring me! Just the thought of having a swim and then suddenly hearing a bag of chips getting stuck behind a glass panel sends shivers down my spine.
Du Dun
Du Dun
Du Dun Du Dun
Num num
Num num
