Is it possible to think intelligently about the world while hating statistics?

[noname223]

I had a dispute with a right wing extreme acquaintance of mine. I destroyed him while debating politics. But on the other issue IQ in combination with eugenics and racism I had no chance. He talked a lot about statistics and I have no clue about it. I had statistics at college. People told me I was very good in it. However, I truely hated it and I already forgot most of the content of the course. Thinking so much about numbers and statistics increased my depression a lot. But for science knowledge about statistics is a necessity. I will always remain a fraud and faker because of it. Is it a necessity to understand statistics in-depth to talk in a sophisticated way about the world? It is a way to test our hypotheses, theories and narratives about the world.

I would be curious about the answer of @DarkRange55

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

People who are good at statistics are also really good at manipulating true and factual results into whatever opinions or beliefs they already hold.

 

[enduringwinter]

Any stat can be disputed with simple criticism by anyone who learned it. Politics is the domain of social intelligence.

 

[KillingPain267]

Yes, nobody is actually a statistic. And the stuff about IQ and race is nonsense since the traditional races are arbitrary categories. It's meaningless to argue about. Like arguing if guys wearing green shirts have higher IQ scores than guys wearing striped shirts. Even if true, who cares. We all die anyway, the sun will explode one day.

 

[strawberrydino]

If you do not understand statistics, you should definitly look at the source itself. Where did they pull the statistic from? From who? Is it an original study or from an article quoting it? Is the study peer-reviewed? How many people did that study actually look into? In politics statistcs are so manipulated to fit the person's bias almost no statistic is actually reliable. It's not to saw statistics is not important, but most political extremists twist the actual statistics.

You don't really intense statistics knowledge to understand politics, just basics of checking sources. Also know that just because a source looks like it supports something does not always mean the cause is what they say it is: example. (sorry I am a massive yapper)

 

[DarkRange55]

I had a dispute with a right wing extreme acquaintance of mine. I destroyed him while debating politics. But on the other issue IQ in combination with eugenics and racism I had no chance. He talked a lot about statistics and I have no clue about it. I had statistics at college. People told me I was very good in it. However, I truely hated it and I already forgot most of the content of the course. Thinking so much about numbers and statistics increased my depression a lot. But for science knowledge about statistics is a necessity. I will always remain a fraud and faker because of it. Is it a necessity to understand statistics in-depth to talk in a sophisticated way about the world? It is a way to test our hypotheses, theories and narratives about the world.

I would be curious about the answer of @DarkRange55

Of course, statistics are useful but can be vary misleading. plenty of people with little knowledge of statistics talk in sophisticated ways about the world (and a few of them are even writing what they say …).
yes, using an understanding of statistics is one of the ways to test our hypotheses etc.

A friend of mine has a masters degree in statistical design for studies and can give you chapter and verse. I can ask her for her 2 cents if you're interested?

 

[noname223]

Of course, statistics are useful but can be vary misleading. plenty of people with little knowledge of statistics talk in sophisticated ways about the world (and a few of them are even writing what they say …).
yes, using an understanding of statistics is one of the ways to test our hypotheses etc.

A friend of mine has a masters degree in statistical design for studies and can give you chapter and verse. I can ask her for her 2 cents if you're interested?

Well I have waited for this response the whole day. First of all thank you. I also feel better after reading it.
Tbh I think my right-wing extreme acquaintance cannot be taken serious. The political theory these people communicate is utter bullshit. It was a house of cards with barely any logic. I suspect the statistics of this group is of a similar quality. Many official sources call them pseudoscientists. They are edgelords who dedicate their whole life to trigger the libs. I just feel bad because I could not take down their bullshit claims about statistics.

I think this is their cult leader:

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Emil Ole William Kirkegaard who changed his name legally to William Engman[3][4] (online aliases: Deleet,[5][6] Deleetdk,[7] EmilOWK) (1989–) is a Danish far-right linguist,[8] eugenicist,[8] climate change denier,[note 1] homophobe, and activist for legalising child pornography and incest, as...

rationalwiki.org

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Real-world data will always be more accurate than baseless subjective opinions.

Of course statistics can be biased or inaccurate but still better than the alternatives.

I'm not saying that politics is purely scientific though, ethics is still subjective so we can't even agree what an ideal world should look like so we can work towards it, also some things just can't be measured or tested, try proving objectively whether an optimistic/pessimistic world view is more realistic.

 

[DarkRange55]

Well I have waited for this response the whole day. First of all thank you. I also feel better after reading it.
Tbh I think my right-wing extreme acquaintance cannot be taken serious. The political theory these people communicate is utter bullshit. It was a house of cards with barely any logic. I suspect the statistics of this group is of a similar quality. Many official sources call them pseudoscientists. They are edgelords who dedicate their whole life to trigger the libs. I just feel bad because I could not take down their bullshit claims about statistics.

I think this is their cult leader:

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

Emil Ole William Kirkegaard who changed his name legally to William Engman[3][4] (online aliases: Deleet,[5][6] Deleetdk,[7] EmilOWK) (1989–) is a Danish far-right linguist,[8] eugenicist,[8] climate change denier,[note 1] homophobe, and activist for legalising child pornography and incest, as...

rationalwiki.org

Statistics is a tool but it can definitely be misleading for many reasons. The way you present it, context, how the study was conducted especially when for example, when pulling people how they present a question, sample size, validity, peer-reviewed, does it ignore other statistics, etc.

I forgot the exact saying, but it's something like numbers don't lie but people do.

 

[Agon321]

Statistics are very important.
If someone does not take them into account at all, then that person is not reliable.

The funny problem is that you can use the same statistic to support or disprove two different claims.
It all comes down to how you phrase the question and answer.

Manipulation with statistics is VERY easy.
For example, if you use some statistics to present your views, your words automatically become more true in the eyes of other people, even if the statistics are completely wrong.
It's just rare that someone checks whether the statistics are true.
Pure psychology.

Everyone is being manipulated this way: you, me and everyone on and off this forum.
This is one of the easiest ways to manipulate individuals and society.

I consider statistics to be very important, and I also know that it is a double-edged sword.

 

[delora]

As others said, some people are just good at manipulating data to back up their own claims. Confirmation bias and all that.

I'll go as far as to say that quite a few people have no idea what they're talking about, but have just learned how to speak in such a way that makes them seem credible or "more intelligent," deceiving others into thinking they have a good point even if it might be utter bullshit. And I don't know if that's the case here but as far as I have observed, those types are usually the ones misusing statistics the most, quoting inaccurate or biased studies, etc.

As someone who's not argumentative and has little energy to dispend on political debates and the like, I don't have much knowledge in that regard. But if you enjoy debating, don't let their (possibly feigned) "knowledge" in statistics discourage you — maybe look up/ask for their sources, you might find something to dismantle their arguments.

 

[DarkRange55]

I had a dispute with a right wing extreme acquaintance of mine. I destroyed him while debating politics. But on the other issue IQ in combination with eugenics and racism I had no chance. He talked a lot about statistics and I have no clue about it. I had statistics at college. People told me I was very good in it. However, I truely hated it and I already forgot most of the content of the course. Thinking so much about numbers and statistics increased my depression a lot. But for science knowledge about statistics is a necessity. I will always remain a fraud and faker because of it. Is it a necessity to understand statistics in-depth to talk in a sophisticated way about the world? It is a way to test our hypotheses, theories and narratives about the world.

I would be curious about the answer of @DarkRange55

You can manipulate data to make a pattern appear.
It is extremely difficult to find true randomness in anything other than QM and math.

 

[DarkRange55]

You can manipulate data to make a pattern appear.
It is extremely difficult to find true randomness in anything other than QM and math.

Also apophenia. Thats the word I couldn't recall. It's about patternicity — our tendency to see shapes, patterns, and connections in random things.
This is closely related to confirmation bias — which is our tendency to seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs, even while we ignore other rational explanations.

Apophenia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Remember correlation does not necessarily equal causation

 

[DarkRange55]

This graph was created by a Harvard Law student to illustrate a point about drawing conclusions from correlation…

Eat cheese... and risk strangulation

Tyler Vigen is master of the spurious correlation

www.wired.com

It's old and I've seen this before but my friend reminded me, he's a PhD candidate in statistical genomics.