The famous quote:
"LIES, MORE LIES AND STATISTICS!"
is a truism, an evergreen indisputable truth, referring to the use of statistics to influence our opinions and decisions.
Statistics has/have so many methods of collection, collation, analysis and interpretation, and so many ways of presentation. The expert statisticians will have no problem manipulating, playing and flirting with the numbers, as if they are the figures of a voluptuous young woman's measurements.
Surveys are even more tricky and manipulative.
Surveys can be done with a small group of select sampling (targeted for a select objective) or a large group of widely spread-out sampling of the population distribution.
It is common sense that the larger the group of sampling, the more accurate the results may turn out. The smaller the group of sampling, the least accurate the results would be.
Most surveys are done with a small sampling because of pure laziness, shortage of time, lack of resources and seriousness and outright evil deceptive intent.
Survey questionnaires can also be constructed in such a manner that leads the targeted responders to answer positively or negatively. They can even leave the responders no choice, except to respond in the way the "researchers" have already predetermined.
Survey analysis is another area that can be manipulated and skewed to meet certain objectives. It all depends on the ingenuity, integrity and trustworthiness, or the disingenuity, cunningness and unscrupulousness, of the beholdened "analysts" or paid "researchers".
Surveys' reports, the most manipulated frontier of deception, are frequently used by politicians, political parties and policymakers as test-balloons to gauge, as well as opinion-influencers to lure unsuspecting, innocent people to their side. So, read these survey reports with a large handful of salts.
Professional and well-paid survey reporters are some of the best liars in the opinions influencing field. I have never trusted their reports. You can trust them at your own perils.
In conclusion, though statistics and surveys are good tools for decision-making if done by ourselves for our own needs, but they should not be relied upon if presented by others to influence our opinions and decisions.
A-non-y-mouse.
3 comments:
@ A-non-y-mouse
>> Professional and well-paid survey reporters are some of the best liars in the opinions influencing field. I have never trusted their reports. You can trust them at your own perils. <<
Expanding on A-non-y-mouse's ideas
As I've indicated before, please don't make the error of using statistical analysis for unscientific processes like surveys...which are fraught with all manner of possible errors of measurement and method.
Statistics are powerful sets of tools that allow us to live and prosper> At the same time they are dangerous sets of weapons and falsehoods which blow up in one's face:
For e.g. think Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund staffed by Nobel Laureates and the world's "brightest" financial minds. Their "models" were all stat-based, and the fund BLEW UP and nearly took the whole world down with it.
Alan Greenspan, US Fed Chairman at the time did the only thing to save the global financial system which was to print a helluva lot of money, pumping "liquidity" into the system. A bailout? Hell yeah. Brilliant minds (arrogant fools) blow up the world, and they don't LOSE personally, but everyone else has to pay for their mistakes.
Surveys are fine for subjective opinions like: Which stall has the best bakuteh, who is the prettiest actor or the hunkiest sportsman....Surveys are great tools to keep The Chattering Classes (social media addicts) engaged, so savvy marketers can SELL them worthless trinkets people blow their money and credit on through impulse buying.
People become SHEEPLE in the consumer market. Consumerism's main driver is social proof and social competition for STATUS
If a survey states that Product A is preferred by 90% of consumers (sheeple) it sends the signals of social proof (Product A is "good") and then people compete for social status by going out and BUYING Product A, so as not to be "left out" and "lose face".
If human beings could not be "influenced" and "manipulated" in masses, people like myself would be out of business. 😂
Lucky for me, critical thinking skills are a rarity, and individual competition for SOCIAL STATUS is in every human being...from toddlers to grandparents.
Everyone, without exception is THE CENTRE of their universe and THE HERO in their life story. 🍻 👍🏻
Own self look after own self.
That's way of life here.
What's more to say..
Mdm Ho
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/100005335308340/posts/1947273405460484/>Boosters do really help to reduce the risks of severe illness from Covid. </a>
One 70+ senior felt very sick when she had her 1st shots. She grumbled and grumbled about them.
Then when boosters are available, she gamely decided to go for her booster. Her reaction this time was mild, and she felt good that she had decided to go for her booster.
Other younger seniors who had not felt much reaction the 1st 2 shots felt a bit more reaction - which were nothing more than feeling a bit more tired for one day after their boosters.
Overall, the typical reactions to boosters are similar to those from the earlier shots (with no anaphylaxis so far).
The other very good alternative protection is essentially the vaccine differentiated safe management measures (VDSMM or VDS).
Our VDS has protected our unvaccinated from crowded places and close contact activities which have higher transmission risks.
No dining in eateries where masks are down, no gyms where folks are panting away, no visits to malls where crowds gather (except to visit a GP clinic and such), no going to work and can work from home, etc.
The key is no dining at various eateries and no visiting of malls for unvaccinated seniors who are at the highest risk of severe illness if infected.
Our kids 5-11 years old are already well on the way to get vaccinated.
With boosters for 12 and above (esp folks 50 and above, and the immunocompromised), VDS for the unvaxxed, vaccination for kids down to 5 years old, and some luck, we should weather the Omicron surge with minimal deaths.
Folks who are pregnant or plan to get pregnant should get vaccinated asap.
So you know?
Teens and young adults have 450 times higher risk of myocarditis from covid infection than from vaccination.
With Omicron, it is almost certain that all of us will meet it over the next few months.
Before Delta and Omicron, we could have made the calculation that we may enjoy herd protection from the folks who are highly vaccinated around us.
But with Delta and Omicron, and the higher infectivity as well as higher escape of the Omicron, we basically have very little chance of avoiding the virus.
So young people on balance are better off getting vaccinated early.
True, low risk is not no risk, and the data on the risk of myocarditis is based on Delta and the earlier variants.
But Omicron is still covid with a more efficient way to enter cells for infection.
It may have a less efficient way to infect lung cells? This is an interesting puzzle bcos the lungs also have ACE2 receptors too, the primary receptor for the covid spikes.
So don’t bank on the Omicron having less myocarditis risk.
Post a Comment