Every year sportswriter Matthew Berry opens his season discussing fantasy football with some variation of this essay, showing you can "prove" whatever you want by highlighting some information over other information. Read the opening section above the first photograph, especially the sections about Quarterback A and Quarterback B, even if you don't care for football or fantasy football.
Now reflect that what you can do with football statistics you can do with sociology, or psychology, or anthropology, or education, criminology. You can do it even more with history, and can do it so easily with journalism that you should hold the information they present to you at arm's length even if you trust them. Even if it's your twin sister, who is nicer than you. Even if it's your own self, writing a decade ago.
Journalists will emphatically agree with you on this, and historians will be right behind them, saying "Yes, this is what we have been telling you all along! It matters which voices get to speak and which don't! It matters whether you look at things from the POV of the powerful or the powerless! There are dozens of different perspectives that are possible and the writer must choose carefully and declare his or her choices and reasons. And the reader should be aware that choices have been made and be cautious about what they are seeing." They do get that. They do honestly understand that.
And then they go and are still worse than everyone else in terms of bias. Mere cynicism, mere knowing-that-it-happens, is not an adequate defense. I don't know the reason for this, but I suspect it stems from being a certain sort of person, who wants to tell everyone what is really happening. It may be that this personality characteristic overwhelms all sincere effort to be objective.
And, pretty obviously, I have that personality characteristic myself.
Numbers can be rearranged to say whatever you want them to say. Which is why I ignore sports stats and sociology.
ReplyDeleteI take a slightly different view, that statistics can be made to tell the truth if you grab them by the collar, shove them against the wall, and make them tell you who their friends are. With sports that is often easy to guess - players, owners, fans, and agents all have pretty clear agendas, you simply have to remember to look. For social sciences, those pretend that they are objective and have no true friends, so it gets more difficult. Yet once you have discovered who their friends are - usually the people who pay them and give them status, or more indirectly but just as reliably, who funds and gives status to their tribe - you are on your way.
ReplyDeleteStatistics showed that even with $100 oil, the "accomplishments" of Chavista Venezuela were, for the most part, smoke and mirrors. As such, the collapse after the fall in the price of oil was not a surprise. Chavez was elected in 1998 with $11 oil. Chavez died in 2013, with $100 oil. Percent increase in per capita income (1998-2013),constant PPP dollars: 44% for World, 15% for Venezuela. Given the over $1 trillion in oil export revenues during this time (constant 2012 dollars), Chavista Venezuela's pathetic economic growth is even more damning. Statistics can similarly show that the alleged iaccomplishments of Chavista Venezuela in education and health care were similarly, mostly smoke and mirrots.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly with the Castro regime, statistics show that Castro inherited a fairly well-off country, and that while the Castro regime did have accomplishments in improving health care, so did other countries.
Example: Cuba's Life Expectancy is currently 4 years higher than Life Expectancy for Latin America and the Caribbean. Does this indicate that the Castro regime had been a good steward for the Cuban people?
Followup question.Cuba's Life Expectancy in the 1950s was 8 years higher than Life Expectancy for Latin America and the Caribbean. Does this indicate that the Batista regime had been a good steward for the Cuban people?
Pinochet versus Castro:
How did the Pinochet regime perform in health care compared to the Castro regime?
From 1977 to 1983, a span of 6 years, the Pinochet regime reduced the Infant Mortality rate from 41.8 to 20.8.
From 1963 to 1977, a span of 14 years, the Castro regime reduced the Infant Mortality rate from 41.7 to 20.6.
From 1973 to 1989, a span of 16 years, the Pinochet regime reduced the Infant Mortality rate from 64.1 to 17.1.
From 1963 to 1979, a span of 16 years, the Castro regime reduced the Infant Mortality rate from 41.7 to 17.5.
Infant mortality rate (IGME) Also for Life Expectancy
During this time, Cuba had about twice as many physicians per capita as Chile.(World Bank)
Statistics have their uses.