Unfortunately, most people haven't the first clue how to read and interpret statistics, while researchers and reporters are masters of 'smoke and mirrors.'
Love your Russian translation below- "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" -- into "the wine is fine but the meat is bad"- kind of says it all.
But scientific illiteracy -- in the people -- and scientism -- in the "scientists" -- may be the death of us all. Not sure if you're much of a sci-fi fan but you might enjoy this classic, particularly the use of "quant. suff." And I expect the style of writing and the subject matter are quite in line with yours:
In other news, though on the same topic, not sure if you saw much of that "Santa Fe Boys" conference on sex and gender -- I kibbitzed from the side lines. Ostensibly to resolve conflict between different conceptions of sex and gender but precious little of that; some got quite peeved at the suggestions, which I may have precipitated, that their own ideas weren't universally accepted, and were part of the problem. Not mentioning any names, but Daphna Joel was one of the ring leaders; stay tuned for further developments ... 🙂
I was not able to tune in... Does not surprise me any that you got in there and wound some people up! Not hard to do with this particular debate - I think that's a worthwhile study in itself.
Math - you’ve got to love it! And you’ve got to make sure it isn’t mis-used. Your essay explains and celebrates statistics while warning how easily they can be distorted or misleading. Kudos to you.
Thanks muchly Hippiesq 👍; "got to love it", indeed. 🙂 Though I'm still something of a neophyte in the field, still learning. And much of statistics is still well outside of my salary range -- partly why I use those programs to get a better handle on the topic.
But reminds me of a quip by a British mathematician, Jacob Bronowski, the author of the book and BBC documentary, "The Ascent of Man(kind)": "mathematics is the most colossal metaphor imaginable". He was probably biased, but still some merit in the idea. 🙂
In any case, and ICYMI, you might have some interest in this recent Note of mine -- in response to a welcome restack by SCA -- that suggests that Louise Perry's "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century" may have been one of the primary causes for the confusion over the 30% overlap I had discussed previously:
I had just Googled that quote of Bronowski's and was surprised to learn that it is quoted in that "Human Use of Human Beings" book I've nailed to my masthead. Ran across another site which quotes it as well, but a couple of others you might also be interested in:
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. — Albert Einstein"
Thanks muchly SCA for the vote of confidence and for the moral support. 👍🙂 Maybe more so for the more tangible restacking -- another first! 🙂
Though I'm sorry for the "hurt" it caused, although "no pain, no gain" and all that. But happy to try to clarify any of the more "problematic" aspects that are causing you the most grief. Sadly, statistics are, as I've indicated, rather counter-intuitive, and it's not easy to translate from even the rudiments of the topic into more common or colloquial "man in the street" terminology.
Any number of pitfalls in that process. Reminds me of a classic case of a translation of a common phrase -- "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" -- into Russian and then back to English which yielded "the wine is fine but the meat is bad".
However, as I've also argued, it seems rather important that more people acquire some facility with even those rudiments, not least because various misunderstandings of them tend to compound any number of sticky social problems.
And a more or less classic case of that "misunderstanding", as I've argued in the above, is apparently in the implications of that 30% overlap in the two population distributions for men and women. Moot of course how prevalent that misunderstanding is, or the provenance and roots of it, but some reason to at least suggest that Louise Perry's "Sexual Revolution" is a primary cause for its "problematic" dissemination. As Helen Dale put it in her quite illuminating and "pithy" review of that book:
HD: "Here, Perry’s numeracy shines, and if I were teaching undergraduate statistics, I’d set her discussion of overlapping bell curves in week one. .... Perry accepts that Homo sapiens are much more cognitively dimorphic than many people realise. 70 per cent of men have a pattern of personality traits that no woman has; 70 per cent of women have a pattern of personality traits that no man has."
"sexually dimorphic cognitive traits" seems a rather important bit of information to emphasize, to make as "common currency". But misinterpreting the underlying statistics tends to be rather "problematic" at best, if not a pretext for equivocation and misuse by various charlatans, grifters, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists of one stripe or another.
Reminds me of a classic case of that in a Breitbart essay by "Milo" some 8 years ago which boldly, if rather fraudulently, claimed that:
"Milo: Sorry, Girls! But The Smartest People In The World Are All Men"
While it may be true that, properly using the correct terminology and principles of statistics, there are "more" "smart" men than "smart" women, it is also true that, by those same principles, we might also say that "the dumbest people in the world are all men". Not surprisingly, neither Milo nor Breitbart were very keen about emphasizing that other side of the coin. 😉🙂
I continue to feel that we're in a time and place where reason, logic, the careful use of evidence and verifiable solid data will not help us much. As with all things Plague, all things sex and the personality variances between dingl-people and squeezie-people have become signifiers of political allegiance and common sense be damned.
This must burn out as all social fads and mental illness brushfires do. Regardless of the malady or dysfunction, unethical or idiot healthcare providers will get their market share.
It will take a generation before we begin to see the scope of the horrors. As with DES daughters (I know I typed something like this to you before), the effects on children exposed in utero to a manipulated hormonal bath and exposed post-birth to manipulated hormonal mammary glandular secretions won't be known for awhile.
Meanwhile we may respond to people introducing their darling little trans children to us by thanking them for self-eugenicizing their bloodline.
And "DES daughters" indeed; did look into that a bit after our last discussion. "Forgive us Lord, we know not what we do" -- though the nature of the beast is generally that it's often impossible to know what the consequences of our actions will be, yet we are still required to act. "Circumspection" is not an easily learned ability, apparently more difficult for some than others. 🙂
Unfortunately, most people haven't the first clue how to read and interpret statistics, while researchers and reporters are masters of 'smoke and mirrors.'
Love your Russian translation below- "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" -- into "the wine is fine but the meat is bad"- kind of says it all.
Thanks Doc! 🙂
But scientific illiteracy -- in the people -- and scientism -- in the "scientists" -- may be the death of us all. Not sure if you're much of a sci-fi fan but you might enjoy this classic, particularly the use of "quant. suff." And I expect the style of writing and the subject matter are quite in line with yours:
http://www.myths.com/pub/fiction/science-fiction/Bester/The-Stars-My-Destination.html
In other news, though on the same topic, not sure if you saw much of that "Santa Fe Boys" conference on sex and gender -- I kibbitzed from the side lines. Ostensibly to resolve conflict between different conceptions of sex and gender but precious little of that; some got quite peeved at the suggestions, which I may have precipitated, that their own ideas weren't universally accepted, and were part of the problem. Not mentioning any names, but Daphna Joel was one of the ring leaders; stay tuned for further developments ... 🙂
a bit of a shitshow, indeed.
I was not able to tune in... Does not surprise me any that you got in there and wound some people up! Not hard to do with this particular debate - I think that's a worthwhile study in itself.
Looking forward to it!
Math - you’ve got to love it! And you’ve got to make sure it isn’t mis-used. Your essay explains and celebrates statistics while warning how easily they can be distorted or misleading. Kudos to you.
Thanks muchly Hippiesq 👍; "got to love it", indeed. 🙂 Though I'm still something of a neophyte in the field, still learning. And much of statistics is still well outside of my salary range -- partly why I use those programs to get a better handle on the topic.
But reminds me of a quip by a British mathematician, Jacob Bronowski, the author of the book and BBC documentary, "The Ascent of Man(kind)": "mathematics is the most colossal metaphor imaginable". He was probably biased, but still some merit in the idea. 🙂
In any case, and ICYMI, you might have some interest in this recent Note of mine -- in response to a welcome restack by SCA -- that suggests that Louise Perry's "The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century" may have been one of the primary causes for the confusion over the 30% overlap I had discussed previously:
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-39872758
I will check that out. And, while I have been away from math since early on in my college days, I always thought it was great for metaphors.
Thanks. 🙂 And "great for metaphors", indeed.
I had just Googled that quote of Bronowski's and was surprised to learn that it is quoted in that "Human Use of Human Beings" book I've nailed to my masthead. Ran across another site which quotes it as well, but a couple of others you might also be interested in:
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. — Albert Einstein"
https://www.kenknowlton.com/pages/14math.htm
I'm just here to be friendly. This whole post made my head hurt.
But the strength of purpose behind it, I salute.
Thanks muchly SCA for the vote of confidence and for the moral support. 👍🙂 Maybe more so for the more tangible restacking -- another first! 🙂
Though I'm sorry for the "hurt" it caused, although "no pain, no gain" and all that. But happy to try to clarify any of the more "problematic" aspects that are causing you the most grief. Sadly, statistics are, as I've indicated, rather counter-intuitive, and it's not easy to translate from even the rudiments of the topic into more common or colloquial "man in the street" terminology.
Any number of pitfalls in that process. Reminds me of a classic case of a translation of a common phrase -- "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" -- into Russian and then back to English which yielded "the wine is fine but the meat is bad".
However, as I've also argued, it seems rather important that more people acquire some facility with even those rudiments, not least because various misunderstandings of them tend to compound any number of sticky social problems.
And a more or less classic case of that "misunderstanding", as I've argued in the above, is apparently in the implications of that 30% overlap in the two population distributions for men and women. Moot of course how prevalent that misunderstanding is, or the provenance and roots of it, but some reason to at least suggest that Louise Perry's "Sexual Revolution" is a primary cause for its "problematic" dissemination. As Helen Dale put it in her quite illuminating and "pithy" review of that book:
HD: "Here, Perry’s numeracy shines, and if I were teaching undergraduate statistics, I’d set her discussion of overlapping bell curves in week one. .... Perry accepts that Homo sapiens are much more cognitively dimorphic than many people realise. 70 per cent of men have a pattern of personality traits that no woman has; 70 per cent of women have a pattern of personality traits that no man has."
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/feminising-feminism/
"sexually dimorphic cognitive traits" seems a rather important bit of information to emphasize, to make as "common currency". But misinterpreting the underlying statistics tends to be rather "problematic" at best, if not a pretext for equivocation and misuse by various charlatans, grifters, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists of one stripe or another.
Reminds me of a classic case of that in a Breitbart essay by "Milo" some 8 years ago which boldly, if rather fraudulently, claimed that:
"Milo: Sorry, Girls! But The Smartest People In The World Are All Men"
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/
While it may be true that, properly using the correct terminology and principles of statistics, there are "more" "smart" men than "smart" women, it is also true that, by those same principles, we might also say that "the dumbest people in the world are all men". Not surprisingly, neither Milo nor Breitbart were very keen about emphasizing that other side of the coin. 😉🙂
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics", indeed.
I continue to feel that we're in a time and place where reason, logic, the careful use of evidence and verifiable solid data will not help us much. As with all things Plague, all things sex and the personality variances between dingl-people and squeezie-people have become signifiers of political allegiance and common sense be damned.
This must burn out as all social fads and mental illness brushfires do. Regardless of the malady or dysfunction, unethical or idiot healthcare providers will get their market share.
It will take a generation before we begin to see the scope of the horrors. As with DES daughters (I know I typed something like this to you before), the effects on children exposed in utero to a manipulated hormonal bath and exposed post-birth to manipulated hormonal mammary glandular secretions won't be known for awhile.
Meanwhile we may respond to people introducing their darling little trans children to us by thanking them for self-eugenicizing their bloodline.
"variances between dingl-people and squeezie-people"
LoL. A variation I hadn't heard before. 🙂
But quite agree with you on the "social fads and mental illness brushfires" -- a popular and useful perspective:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
https://quotefancy.com/quote/1307196/Charles-Mackay-Men-it-has-been-well-said-think-in-herds-it-will-be-seen-that-they-go-mad
https://www.amazon.ca/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1539849589/
And "DES daughters" indeed; did look into that a bit after our last discussion. "Forgive us Lord, we know not what we do" -- though the nature of the beast is generally that it's often impossible to know what the consequences of our actions will be, yet we are still required to act. "Circumspection" is not an easily learned ability, apparently more difficult for some than others. 🙂