When will we learn?

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Comments

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

"The Huffington Post compiled news reports of gun-related homicides and accidental deaths in the U.S. since the massacre in Newtown, Conn. on the morning of Dec. 14."

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/gun-deaths

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Thanks, that solves one of the three problems I raised.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

It solves two, source and type of gun deaths involved.
I'm not sure how to place the stats in context other than to look at other countries.
Hope this helps with the 3rd problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

Are the statistics inclusive of suicides?

A link to wikipedia doesn't help with the problem with statistics as used in the meme, no.

The problem with the meme is that it gives us the number of deaths in a population without putting it in proportion against the total population number. The second statistic is essential for justifying the extent of the problem under discussion and should be included within the meme (I shouldn't have to search elsewhere for it)

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Are the statistics inclusive of suicides?

No.

The problem with the meme is that it gives us the number of deaths in a population without putting it in proportion against the total population number. The second statistic is essential for justifying the extent of the problem under discussion and should be included within the meme (I shouldn't have to search elsewhere for it)

Actually the wikipedia link shows effects of gun violence in proportion to populations globally thereby giving context to where it is problematic locally, ie the US. So.... yeah.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"Actually the wikipedia link "

Is the wikipedia link part of the image posted?

If not then the image still made bad use of statistics.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

If not then the image still made bad use of statistics.
The image is merely conveying data. I don't know how it could possibly be a bad use if the data is presented accurately. What conclusions you may or may not draw from such data is another matter...

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

"I don't know how it could possibly be a bad use if the data is presented accurately."

It is very possible to use statistics in a misleading manner. It happens all the time in politics. You never seen a politician paint a inaccurate picture using accurate statistics?

In this case, a number of deaths within a population is given without giving the total population number. That's bad statistics as it gives no sense of scale, and thus can make a problem look bigger than it really is.

An example is International Aid. Every time I see a report on UK contributions to International Aid, it's always 'look at this really big amount of money we're giving away'. The number given is accurate and will seem very big to individual person, but is actually a tiny amount of the UK budget. This gives people a very false impression about the proportion of money spent on International Aid by the UK.

That's bad statistics, despite the numbers being correct.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

I have other concerns so I have to stop debating whether or not this is "bad statistics". Its an infographic with accurate data, thats it. Also I'd like to highlight that I didn't propose anything, that certain characters came out of the woodwork to immediately discount it as it runs counter to their narrative, and that you are coming to their aid for some odd reason.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I make an active effort to try to hold all perspectives to the same standard, including perspectives that are similar to or in agreement with my own. You mention how people tend to immediately discount information that runs counter to their narrative, and the reverse is also true; people tend to accept information that confirms their narrative much too easily. Confirmation bias is pretty universal and requires an active effort to avoid.

Part of the reason why I don't like to think of political debate and discussion as being composed of 'sides', but instead try to approach people's arguments and claims individually. Helps reduce bias. I'll question anti-gun regulation statistics just as carefully as I do with this meme, so I don't regard myself as coming to anyone's 'aid'.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

I make an active effort to try to hold all perspectives to the same standard, including perspectives that are similar to or in agreement with my own. You mention how people tend to immediately discount information that runs counter to their narrative, and the reverse is also true; people tend to accept information that confirms their narrative much too easily. Confirmation bias is pretty universal and requires an active effort to avoid.

True that. I like being called on my bullshit for the record.

Part of the reason why I don't like to think of political debate and discussion as being composed of 'sides', but instead try to approach people's arguments and claims individually. Helps reduce bias. I'll question anti-gun regulation statistics just as carefully as I do with this meme, so I don't regard myself as coming to anyone's 'aid'.

See I don't get this. All of madscience's quotes used inaccurate statistics to frame the argument as a simple cause effect relationship between the gun ban's and violent crime. Hell he cites an article directly that uses flat numbers and not rates, the exact same thing you took issue with. I haven't had time to interject an opinion other than "you are wrong." And yet, here we are talking about my confirmation biases... Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[wight1984.livejournal.com]

I'll comment on madscience use of statistics when I spot a problem.

I suppose the issue with this particular thread is I was reacting directly to the original post, rather than reading through threads (and behind links) for things to comment on (I do some of that as well, but I'm sure there's plenty I miss)