Comments on: BBC, BNP and Statistics http://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/10/bbc-bnp-statistics/ Mobiles, Shakespeare, Politics, Usability. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:59:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Terence Edenhttp://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/10/bbc-bnp-statistics/#comment-2519 Terence Eden Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:52:22 +0000 http://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=889#comment-2519 There's also the nebulous statistic which (all) mobile companies use - <em>population</em> coverage. You can only cover a few major cities and have excellent population coverage, but your geographic coverage will be rubbish. And, as no one live on the train lines you can get away with not covering them. There’s also the nebulous statistic which (all) mobile companies use – population coverage. You can only cover a few major cities and have excellent population coverage, but your geographic coverage will be rubbish. And, as no one live on the train lines you can get away with not covering them.

]]> By: cyberdoylehttp://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/10/bbc-bnp-statistics/#comment-2511 cyberdoyle Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:51:01 +0000 http://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=889#comment-2511 I like the way reporters quote statistics too. My favourite is the famous BT quote that '99.6% of the UK is connected to a DSL enabled exchange'. This seems to say that everyone can get broadband, yet 3 million households and businesses can't. they may be connected to an exchange capable of broadband but I say: 'half the country (40%) ;) can't get a decent service'. Tit for tat. Lazy journos don't bother investigating, they just quote OFCOM or BT. Bad use of stats IMHO. chris I like the way reporters quote statistics too. My favourite is the famous BT quote that ’99.6% of the UK is connected to a DSL enabled exchange’. This seems to say that everyone can get broadband, yet 3 million households and businesses can’t. they may be connected to an exchange capable of broadband but I say: ‘half the country (40%) ;) can’t get a decent service’. Tit for tat.
Lazy journos don’t bother investigating, they just quote OFCOM or BT. Bad use of stats IMHO.
chris

]]> By: Andrea Trasattihttp://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/10/bbc-bnp-statistics/#comment-2444 Andrea Trasatti Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:47:53 +0000 http://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=889#comment-2444 My take is that the way it is presented inherently influences the way you see it. If I say "more than half of the respondents said X" you will be convinced it's true, if I say "2 out of 3 said X" you will think the number is way too small. It's politics masked like numbers. My take is that the way it is presented inherently influences the way you see it. If I say “more than half of the respondents said X” you will be convinced it’s true, if I say “2 out of 3 said X” you will think the number is way too small. It’s politics masked like numbers.

]]> By: Benjaminhttp://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/10/bbc-bnp-statistics/#comment-2427 Benjamin Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:35:11 +0000 http://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=889#comment-2427 Looks like they have managed to trigger just about every cognitive bias that we have, all in one paragraph - never mind error margins and the effects of attitudinal versus behavioural data in polling situations. Looks like they have managed to trigger just about every cognitive bias that we have, all in one paragraph – never mind error margins and the effects of attitudinal versus behavioural data in polling situations.

]]> By: James Pearcehttp://shkspr.mobi/blog/index.php/2009/10/bbc-bnp-statistics/#comment-2425 James Pearce Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:10:25 +0000 http://shkspr.mobi/blog/?p=889#comment-2425 I find it interesting that humans are not wired up for understanding statistics as elegantly as they can innately for all sorts of other evolutionarily-advantageous things (interpreting facial features, detecting deceit, basic game theory, accurately throwing objects etc) - many of which are 'mathematically' far harder.One would expect that those of our ancestors who could juggle risk, reward, prediction and assumption the most effectively would have been those who'd reproduce most effectively.I'd say it's the syntax.But there are also plenty of famous, simple examples, told in anecdotal form, that most humans completely fail to grasp. Monty Hall's boxes, base rates in medical diagnoses etc etc I find it interesting that humans are not wired up for understanding statistics as elegantly as they can innately for all sorts of other evolutionarily-advantageous things (interpreting facial features, detecting deceit, basic game theory, accurately throwing objects etc) – many of which are ‘mathematically’ far harder.

One would expect that those of our ancestors who could juggle risk, reward, prediction and assumption the most effectively would have been those who’d reproduce most effectively.

I’d say it’s the syntax.

But there are also plenty of famous, simple examples, told in anecdotal form, that most humans completely fail to grasp. Monty Hall’s boxes, base rates in medical diagnoses etc etc

]]>