Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Immigration
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeniorGeek" data-source="post: 205088" data-attributes="member: 4823"><p>He uses some of the classic methods described in the book, <u><strong>How to Lie With Statistics</strong></u>. (The actual purpose of the book is <em>How to Keep From Being Deceived by Statistics</em>.) I'm not saying that there is no problem, but he is exaggerating, misrepresenting and overstating the statistics.</p><p></p><p>He cuts the bottom off the graph - 200,000,000 looks like zero. This exaggerates the size of any change.</p><p></p><p>He uses solid coloring of what should be a line graph, another technique which exaggerates changes.</p><p></p><p>Just those two methods make the problem appear 5 to 10 times bigger than the numbers he presents.</p><p></p><p>He picks two points of information to extrapolate into a straight-line trend - using 1973 and 1993 as two points to create the top line (filled with red). If he had used 1973 and 1995 (for example), the red area would have been much smaller. The US Census already has released information that is newer than 1993 - and the line began to curve down - but why does he ignore the more-recent facts?</p><p></p><p>He uses a different method for his baseline (green area). That line <em>curves</em> in the future, so it must be based on a different type of projection.</p><p></p><p>The gumballs are a creative version of "cutting the bottom off of the graph" and using the "fill-in-the-area" method. If that is a 5-gallon jar of gumballs representing the world population, there should be ~42 ounces of gumballs already in the US container. That would require a <u>much larger</u> brandy snifter.</p><p></p><p>Those are just the deceptions I recognize, after having read the book (<u><strong>How to Lie With Statistics</strong></u>) long ago, as assigned in college.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>In addition</strong> to his misrepresentation of statistics, there is some other sly deception going on.</p><p></p><p>Some second- and third-generation US-born citizens are included in the "red zone" of his graph. (If we move his concept back in time, so the present day is at the end of the graph, someone born in 1978, whose grandparents or great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents immigrated after WWI, would count in the red.)</p><p></p><p>He says we've "...had to build twice as many schools..." as if we have had to double the number of schools. More accurate would be "twice as many <em>additional</em> schools".</p><p></p><p>After presenting his conjecture, subjective interpretation of numbers and a prediction for the future, he says, "This is not conjecture, this is not subjective, this is not what <u>might</u> be, this is what <u>will</u> be...." <strong>He should apply his skills to mutual funds, since they always wimp out by saying that past performance is not a guarantee of future results.</strong></p><p></p><p>He says that a tight labor market was what gave us a middle-class society. Yet his "Golden Era" includes The Depression (with the loosest labor market I know of) and WWII (with the tightest labor market and no gain in middle class).</p><p></p><p>If a tight labor market is good for the middle class, and welfare programs remove people from the labor market, is welfare good for the middle class?</p><p></p><p>The growth of the middle class happened during the post-WWII era, an era of <u>high</u> taxes and <u>huge</u> government spending on domestic projects. This was also an era when we had a Guest Worker program that allowed workers from Mexico to legally enter the US for seasonal work. <u>That</u> was when the middle class grew.</p><p></p><p>He is careful to keep the "...<strong>if</strong>..." disclaimers on his statements, so a full transcript will show that he is not outright lying. He is exaggerating in order to get people to act, but I suspect he may have a specific set of recommendations ready-to-go, to take advantage of any knee-jerk reaction created by his hype. And I wonder what might be hidden in his recommendations....</p><p></p><p>So, my recommendation is to examine any plan that is offered, and to be careful about the details. (We've already seen that gun dealers are somehow related to illegal immigration law.) Do we need more laws? Do we need to increase the penalties in laws that already do not work? Do we need to repeal some existing laws? I do not have pat answers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeniorGeek, post: 205088, member: 4823"] He uses some of the classic methods described in the book, [U][B]How to Lie With Statistics[/B][/U]. (The actual purpose of the book is [I]How to Keep From Being Deceived by Statistics[/I].) I'm not saying that there is no problem, but he is exaggerating, misrepresenting and overstating the statistics. He cuts the bottom off the graph - 200,000,000 looks like zero. This exaggerates the size of any change. He uses solid coloring of what should be a line graph, another technique which exaggerates changes. Just those two methods make the problem appear 5 to 10 times bigger than the numbers he presents. He picks two points of information to extrapolate into a straight-line trend - using 1973 and 1993 as two points to create the top line (filled with red). If he had used 1973 and 1995 (for example), the red area would have been much smaller. The US Census already has released information that is newer than 1993 - and the line began to curve down - but why does he ignore the more-recent facts? He uses a different method for his baseline (green area). That line [I]curves[/I] in the future, so it must be based on a different type of projection. The gumballs are a creative version of "cutting the bottom off of the graph" and using the "fill-in-the-area" method. If that is a 5-gallon jar of gumballs representing the world population, there should be ~42 ounces of gumballs already in the US container. That would require a [U]much larger[/U] brandy snifter. Those are just the deceptions I recognize, after having read the book ([U][B]How to Lie With Statistics[/B][/U]) long ago, as assigned in college. [B]In addition[/B] to his misrepresentation of statistics, there is some other sly deception going on. Some second- and third-generation US-born citizens are included in the "red zone" of his graph. (If we move his concept back in time, so the present day is at the end of the graph, someone born in 1978, whose grandparents or great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents immigrated after WWI, would count in the red.) He says we've "...had to build twice as many schools..." as if we have had to double the number of schools. More accurate would be "twice as many [I]additional[/I] schools". After presenting his conjecture, subjective interpretation of numbers and a prediction for the future, he says, "This is not conjecture, this is not subjective, this is not what [U]might[/U] be, this is what [U]will[/U] be...." [B]He should apply his skills to mutual funds, since they always wimp out by saying that past performance is not a guarantee of future results.[/B] He says that a tight labor market was what gave us a middle-class society. Yet his "Golden Era" includes The Depression (with the loosest labor market I know of) and WWII (with the tightest labor market and no gain in middle class). If a tight labor market is good for the middle class, and welfare programs remove people from the labor market, is welfare good for the middle class? The growth of the middle class happened during the post-WWII era, an era of [U]high[/U] taxes and [U]huge[/U] government spending on domestic projects. This was also an era when we had a Guest Worker program that allowed workers from Mexico to legally enter the US for seasonal work. [U]That[/U] was when the middle class grew. He is careful to keep the "...[B]if[/B]..." disclaimers on his statements, so a full transcript will show that he is not outright lying. He is exaggerating in order to get people to act, but I suspect he may have a specific set of recommendations ready-to-go, to take advantage of any knee-jerk reaction created by his hype. And I wonder what might be hidden in his recommendations.... So, my recommendation is to examine any plan that is offered, and to be careful about the details. (We've already seen that gun dealers are somehow related to illegal immigration law.) Do we need more laws? Do we need to increase the penalties in laws that already do not work? Do we need to repeal some existing laws? I do not have pat answers. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Immigration
Top