Skip to main content

Lies, damn lies, and statistics





When I took basic statistics and and statistical analysis, Disraeli's quote about statistics (that lies, damn lies, etc.) was always in the forefront of the discussions. There are ways to keep an eye on such things, on the distortions possible via our love of numbers and statistics, but you seldom see them used, especially in the popular media.



So it was with some interest that I saw in yesterday's Best of the Web a reference to a piece of statistical analysis done by the Israel-based International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, called "An Engineered Tragedy". In it, the authors assert that the "scorecard" typically used in the media for comparing the number of Palestinians killed versus the number of Israelis lends a certain distortion to the reporting. Thus, they write that their "database shows a total of 561 Israelis killed, compared to around 1499 Palestinians, up to 30 June 2002." These numbers are essentially what the media often reports, seeming to say, "See, lots more Palestinians die, so all these suicide bombers can't be that bad."



But what ICT's statistical analysis says is:



[S]uch numbers distort the true picture: They lump combatants in with noncombatants, suicide bombers with innocent civilians, and report Palestinian “collaborators” murdered by their own compatriots as if they had been killed by Israel. Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 579 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 433 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians (see Graph 1.2). While Israelis account for a little more than 27 percent of the total fatalities as generally reported, they represent some 43 percent of these noncombatant victims. There are a number of valid ways of arriving at such corrected figures to compare the extent to which each side has been responsible for the killing of noncombatants; they all show a much less lopsided picture of the conflict than the raw totals do.
The ICT piece goes on to describe methodology, and presents figures and graphs to bolsters it conclusions. All in all, a completely different picture is painted than the one you get with the typical media scorecard.



But then, giving out full and correct numbers would require, well, effort. The boiler plate is sooooo much easier.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...
2 comments
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered....
Post a Comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more