Some of my school is doing a "domestic violence" awarness week and while that's all well and good they started ratling off all these statistics. Such as "every 9 seconds a woman dies from domestic abuse" (I think that was it, it may have been "is abused every...") and that kinda pissed me off with all the other statistics. because people were treating these as facts. Unsourced, from a non-biased study group (the orginization itself). If you do the math on that 9 second one, it means that every year 3504000 women are abused/killed. I doubt we'd need an orgninaztion to tell us that if it was that wide spread. Yes domestic abuse happens, is it that wide spread? hell no. But these statisics made it feel like half the planet was going home at night to have the shit kicked out of them by the other half for not getting the half doing the beatings sammich fast enough.

Excuse me but between stats that contradict each other, are ambigous and that they all have no reliable sources on any of them it screams BS. (TESSA, the DV org in question only cites itself for it's info)

but isn't it like that for all statistics? are they really meant to represent truth and illuminate fact? or are they the horse shit things like "logic" and "reason" (and my friend "truth" for that matter)

I mean honestly what's the point of the groups who publish statistics? In the case of NGOs/Charities it's to get your money. Period. It might be for some wonderful cause but there whole goal is to convince you of how wonderful/pressing their cause it and take your money. So what's a little white lie? with millions on the line? Fact is people lie and tell the truth to suit their agenda. Statistics just happen to be the epitome of money draining lies

quote:

"every 9 seconds a woman dies from domestic abuse" (I think that was it, it may have been "is abused every...")

another part of the nail in the coffin for this one, for what population? the US, the state of colorado? the planet? seriously if they actually researched this would they not actually have the population it was being applied to noted?

of and asuming an even population split by gender (so around 150 million women in the US) every woman in the US is absused once every... ten years is the number I think my friend came up with, still sound sane to any one? Cause even an idiot like me added up tessa's number and came up with "a steaming pile of shit"

quote:

Ahh, yes. The two things the LSAT tests on...

beat enough statistics and other things to a well deserved death with them and you'll be ready for the LSAT megs

quote:

or are they the horse shit things like "logic" and "reason"

Ahh, yes. The two things the LSAT tests on...

That's kind of like the "1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime" bit I see every year at my college. Technically, the 1 in 4 applies just to students at the college, but it's based on a national statistic. I don't buy it. Sexual assault is a big problem, indeed, but I don't think a full quarter of women in the country will have to go through it. I think Freakonomics might have brought it up and said it was closer to 1 in 9, but I'm not sure.

Statistics are inherently untrustworthy. No matter how random a group is, it's not necessarily going to apply to a larger population. Because of that, they're so easily manipulated. Well, that and quite a lot of people are pretty gullible. Enough to not question statistics...

quote:

I mean honestly what's the point of the groups who publish statistics?

There are certain groups whose stats are trusted more than others, and are used by sociologists in order to determine trends and try to figure out why those trends occur.

Though there is always the issue of police records being incomplete, and people lying, among many other things, which lead to misconstrued data.

And yes, most data is bullshit.

I think you'd really like the episode of "Penn And Teller: Bullshit!", that deals with statistics and numbers.

Anyway, I never trust statistics... Ever.