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

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

DVD: The Descent

While waiting for the fourth disk of season 4 of House to arrive, I watched The Descent . This movie has been out on DVD for a while, so why bring it up now? Because I think I might become a fan of its writer-director, Neil Marshall . His latest is Doomsday , recently released on DVD, and while it’s sort of a mess, it’s a mess in that oh-fun-what-the-heck-let’s-shoot-a-Bentley-through-a-bus sort of way. The Descent is a different sort of animal. Prepare for spoilers. Since this film has been out for a while, I’m going to feel free to reveal. The setup is simple: Six friends go spelunking, complications ensue. Basic complications involve Sarah and Juno. Sarah is an emotional wreck following the rather horrible and tragic deaths of her husband and daughter (this trip is seen as therapy , oh my). Juno is a reckless thrill-seeker who leads an unknowing Sarah and friends into a cave no one has – publicly, at least – ever explored. All goes horribly...
1 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