I'm at a bit of a loss to know what you're getting at with your opening post, Usual Suspect.

Have statistics somehow let you down somewhere?

Or is the winter of your discontent a season brought on by somewhat careless use of the word 'statistics' by others to encompass recorded measurements or counts? I know I could be accused of such careless use of the word.

I frequently refer, for example, to 'electoral statistics', when what I really mean to refer to are the actual records of votes counted, or electors enrolled. Work with such reams of mind-numbing records should perhaps better be described as 'internal checking' or 'auditing', rather than statistical analysis. Such work seldom requires more mathematical ability than the simple arithmetical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division. It is within the capability of almost all who can vote. Perhaps its very ease, and mind-numbingness, are reasons why few actually perform such cross-checks; such being, in a way, beneath their dignity. Hidden truths are thereby sometimes (frequently?) overlooked.

I guess its one of life's little coincidences that the title of this thread caught my attention because I had recently used almost the identical expression as the concluding line in a post to the topic 'Driving Down Our living Standards By Stealth', here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1725#33794 . Even more curiously, the post to which I was responding was one upon which Julie Vickers (of bra-snapper, chair-sniffer 'fame') saw fit to comment, five posts later, in a manner suggestive of its having been posted by a glove-puppet! And to think, Julie was engaging in a little political manipulation of her own with the rest of her post!

At least my conscience is clear. The internal checking I am wont to do with electoral 'statistics' shouldn't let anybody down, and thus could not have contributed in any way to your disillusionment with statistics.

It could, perhaps show some people up, though.

Have a nice day. Put your talents to good use.

Carthago delenda est!

The best misuse of statistics is the constantly regurgitated phrase about the average womens wage being less then the average man's wage. They fail to tell you that women engage in more part time work than men and that account for most of the difference

Actually Atman, such an obvious omission is actually corrected for. The truth of the statement remains.

So many people think that the statisticians at the ABS seem to be no better than high-school remdial maths graduates.

It must be remembered that statistics are not lies, they are reflections of actual data points. It's the interpretation and attribution of the underlying causes of trends that gets most people into trouble.

Bugsy,

' It's the interpretation and attribution of the underlying causes of trends that gets most people into trouble.'

Ha, too true. Though you wouldn't see anyone on OLO mis-using stats deliberately or not.

I would say though that probably the hours worked in the studies Atman is discussing would be capped at 'full time'. In many industries this is 60+ for high earners with no parental responsibilities or a partner at home full time, which is more likely to be a bloke.

US “Ironically, I actually have a degree with a major in statistics:-) Not that I have ever used my once held knowledge for anything but understanding the futility of gambling.”

Strange US, you are an objective fellow, I would have thought it came as second nature to you.

I studied Stats as part of my accountancy grind. I have used them often, as they support processes like CPA and PERT. Here I challenged Fred Argy on the merit of tax. (The data from nation master, if you compare “happiness” to “Tax as % of GDP” illustrates a significant negative correlation).

Stats is good stuff. Sure the results can be manipulated particularly with loaded questions and skewed sampling (like testing the general view on abortion outside a catholic or LDS church) but if you are confident of the validity of collection the output is the most objective analysis possible

Col,

I think I'm more averse to people who quote stats in their arguments, and media reports based on a 'new study'. As I said I tune out and find them totally unconvincing, but more because of the reasons I outlined re checking up on them.

With regards to politics, I find Yes Minister highly amusing...

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?
Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.
[survey two]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?
Bernard Woolley: Yes.
[does a double-take]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.