Outliers cans strew overall statistics. Say for example that everyone got around 90% on a math test, but one person flunked the test and got a 0, the class average is going to be less than 90% even though everyone got around 90%.
By adding more to the X-axis, you compress the graph, making the statistic seem more impactful and drastic.
The truth is the legacy media are almost never telling us the truth about the world. Most of the things you see on the news is meant to blind you, a psyop. Not only are they misinforming us, they’re also manipulating graphs to guide us into making certain decisions. I’d say watch news but be perspicacious enough to analyze what u hear and see. In a way, social media may be a better news outlet than legacy media. But I’m sure all these media outlets are controlled by a shadow figure in Switzerland. Even twitter but I think twitter is better because it’s almost unregulated.
Double y-axis graphs are very manipulative. I don’t see the reason for them other than to confuse or manipulate the viewer. Why? It’s harder to read, anyone seeing for the first time will either be confused or give up trying to understand the graph because it looks to complicated. I’d say if you ever see anyone trying to present a graph with double y-axis, they aren’t trying to inform you but trick you.
That’s crazy. A small difference in a large scale isn’t significant especially when seen on a graph. But by changing the scale on a graph, you can make small difference look massive.
Not only does sounding smarter make people believe that you know what you’re talking about, but being specific and giving key details also gives you more trust and credibility.
This is a very good tip for critical think and in general. If you’re ever told a statistic, you should always question its credibility or how it was conducted. Not only how it was conducted, but if it was a statistic involving human action or language, ask and wonder if they’re were any variables that may affect the results.
Basically, if you want good statistics, you have to take a random sample of an entire data set. If you pick and choose samples and use it to represent an entire group, it’ll be inaccurate.
This is a really good point. If there’s ever an eye opening statistic, you should always ask, how in the fuck did they do that? Then do your research of course. Most people don’t care enough about statistics they see unless it affects them.
The author makes a point of asking how they would know the person is gay or lesbian based of a dead corpse, but it’s simple, you ID their body and talk to people who were close to them. Now if it was a suicide and the person is unidentifiable then yeah author wins the argument.