SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arik (4543)
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Friday September 07, 18
07:16 AM
Departing only slightly from the overtly political musings, let me put it to you that statistics are almost always misunderstood, by almost everyone.
Or, perhaps a bit more precisely, I would say that almost everyone misunderstands common statistics - but not in the same ways!
So we'll pull in sex for an example. There's a school of thought that says that there's virtually no difference between men and women, statistically, on anything important. There's another school of thought that says they're so incredibly different, statistically, on virtually everything important, they almost don't look like the same species! And to make this even funnier, these two schools of thought can often point to the SAME data to support their diametrically opposed conclusions!
Ok, so let me break this down for you with just a little more detail. Let's pick an attribute we test for, aggressiveness is a good one here, because the statistical differences between the sexes are about as dramatic on this measure as you'll find anywhere.
So, if I pick out two individuals randomly, and I tell you nothing other than their sex - one is male, the other is female - and ask you to guess which one is more aggressive, what's your guess?
If you guessed the male, of course that was the better guess statistically. But your edge isn't very big, you're only 60% likely to be right. If I answered female I still have a 40% chance to get the question right - you've only got a little edge, not a solid distinction of kind.
In fact, if you go select a group of women who are just a little more aggressive than average, and set them up against a group of males who are just a little less aggressive than average the women are absolutely going to use the guys as footstools and doormats.
This is the no significant differences argument simplified a bit for easy digestion. And it's valid. It's true. On average, women are only a little bit less aggressive than men, and many women are more aggressive than many men. So it's ignorant prejudice to say that men are the aggressive ones and women are not aggressive. It's radically contrary to the facts! And if that's true in terms of aggressiveness it's much more true on most other metrics.
BUT, there are more facts than have been mentioned. What if we look beyond the average, at the distribution?
What if, instead of randomly selecting a male and a female from the general population, we FIRST randomly select 100 individuals, 50 males 50 females, THEN select the most aggressive individual of the bunch. This time, we guess which sex that individual is. Again, you say male, leaving me with the contrary position.
This time the odds are entirely different. There's virtually no chance I'll win.
The average woman is only slightly less aggressive than the average male, and more aggressive than many. Many women are more aggressive than the average male. But the most aggressive man on the planet will be a male. In fact, if we could rank every individual on earth, something like the top 5-6 million people would be males. Only after that would you start seeing females.
A really neat thing is this actually works almost as well in the opposite direction as well. Lots of women are fairly low on the aggression scale but if you want to find someone that is really freakishly low on it, yeah, that's probably going to be a male. Imagine that!
The middles of the distributions aren't far off. But the shape is different, and there are a lot more males waaaaay out on the limbs. On lots of different metrics, not just aggression.
Or, perhaps a bit more precisely, I would say that almost everyone misunderstands common statistics - but not in the same ways!
So we'll pull in sex for an example. There's a school of thought that says that there's virtually no difference between men and women, statistically, on anything important. There's another school of thought that says they're so incredibly different, statistically, on virtually everything important, they almost don't look like the same species! And to make this even funnier, these two schools of thought can often point to the SAME data to support their diametrically opposed conclusions!
Ok, so let me break this down for you with just a little more detail. Let's pick an attribute we test for, aggressiveness is a good one here, because the statistical differences between the sexes are about as dramatic on this measure as you'll find anywhere.
So, if I pick out two individuals randomly, and I tell you nothing other than their sex - one is male, the other is female - and ask you to guess which one is more aggressive, what's your guess?
If you guessed the male, of course that was the better guess statistically. But your edge isn't very big, you're only 60% likely to be right. If I answered female I still have a 40% chance to get the question right - you've only got a little edge, not a solid distinction of kind.
In fact, if you go select a group of women who are just a little more aggressive than average, and set them up against a group of males who are just a little less aggressive than average the women are absolutely going to use the guys as footstools and doormats.
This is the no significant differences argument simplified a bit for easy digestion. And it's valid. It's true. On average, women are only a little bit less aggressive than men, and many women are more aggressive than many men. So it's ignorant prejudice to say that men are the aggressive ones and women are not aggressive. It's radically contrary to the facts! And if that's true in terms of aggressiveness it's much more true on most other metrics.
BUT, there are more facts than have been mentioned. What if we look beyond the average, at the distribution?
What if, instead of randomly selecting a male and a female from the general population, we FIRST randomly select 100 individuals, 50 males 50 females, THEN select the most aggressive individual of the bunch. This time, we guess which sex that individual is. Again, you say male, leaving me with the contrary position.
This time the odds are entirely different. There's virtually no chance I'll win.
The average woman is only slightly less aggressive than the average male, and more aggressive than many. Many women are more aggressive than the average male. But the most aggressive man on the planet will be a male. In fact, if we could rank every individual on earth, something like the top 5-6 million people would be males. Only after that would you start seeing females.
A really neat thing is this actually works almost as well in the opposite direction as well. Lots of women are fairly low on the aggression scale but if you want to find someone that is really freakishly low on it, yeah, that's probably going to be a male. Imagine that!
The middles of the distributions aren't far off. But the shape is different, and there are a lot more males waaaaay out on the limbs. On lots of different metrics, not just aggression.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
The mosquito is the state bird of New Jersey.
-- Andy Warhol
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 07 2018, @10:59AM (7 children)
It's not like this specific example is difficult to see in play. I mean, all you have to do is interact with people regularly and it's blindingly apparent. Well, unless your narrative blinders keep you from seeing the truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @11:21AM (6 children)
Lots of things are blindingly obvious with confirmation bias, selection bias, and motivated reasoning. I'd rather trust data than intuition.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 07 2018, @11:36AM (5 children)
Already covered. See above re: narrative blinders. People are quite capable of seeing the truth all by their lonesome. They just have to prefer that to seeing things that they agree with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @12:31PM (1 child)
Narrative bias would only cover active motivated reasoning and not more passive cognitive bias.
People, in general, are pretty incapable of seeing the truth. It takes an active effort to overcome bias and not just a small preference for the truth.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 07 2018, @07:24PM
It takes effort and practice to avoid any of the above, yes. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 07 2018, @01:21PM (2 children)
Maybe I'm just a freak, but when I see data sufficient to contradict what I think, I tend to change my mind.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @03:33PM
Motivated reasoning means that you won't "see data sufficient to contradict what I think" because you won't look for it. Even if you see contradictory data, you most likely will be overly skeptical of it since it goes against your previous belief, undervalue its impact, or dwarf it with counter data that supports your previous belief.
If you change your positions often, then you might actually be less biased than normal. Of course, if your reply is "I don't change positions because I'm always right" then you'd almost certainly be falling into motivated reasoning. The more intelligent you are, the easier it is to rationalize a wrong position.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 07 2018, @07:26PM
I like seeing data that contradicts what I think. It makes me actually right instead of just thinking I am. It does have to stand up to the same level of scrutiny I put my own thoughts to every single day though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @11:18AM
Scientists often specify if a particular data set is biologically significant (the difference has a substantial phenotypic impact) in addition to statistically significant.
(Score: 3, Touché) by hendrikboom on Friday September 07 2018, @01:16PM (7 children)
I guess men are just as good at child-bearing as women, then.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07 2018, @01:33PM
So what are the implications? Nobody who says that says it without a ton of baggage.
I suggest that we forcibly transition people to men who have wombs and do not use them. After all, why should they enjoy the status and privileges that baggage will give them if they are not using the body part that the baggage uses as the reasons for the status and privilege?
Plus, if we may take feminism's word for it, gender is nothing but a social construct anyway. So there should be no problem for a woman who has not had two children by age 25 to be injected with testosterone and live as a man. There are many benefits associated with testosterone levels 750 ng/ml and higher. She will enjoy a stronger body that builds muscle easier, certainly making her less of a target for violence. Plus, once her facial hair comes in and her voice drops, she will also begin to enjoy male privilege. According to feminism, she should instantly experience a 33% increase in her income, and she will be promoted more often. She will also not need to take time off work to raise children, further her career. If, perhaps later in life, she should desire children, then modern science has made it possible for her to find a younger woman and have children with that women that are genetic offspring of only her and her wife.
One other thing we might do is include women in selective service. Upon giving birth to a child (a live, vaginal birth--C sections are the result of technology and thus not "true" births, the same way that trans women with implanted wombs in the near future who give vaginal birth will not be considered by the feminists to have "truly" given birth, as the act was tainted by technology), then we could allow her to exit selective service. This would greatly empower those born with wombs who do not wish to use them.
There are many benefits to my modest proposal, and I do not see any downsides. I'm certain that Lisa Littman would agree with me....
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 07 2018, @03:12PM (5 children)
Physical differences *are* a bit more significant - and a bit less significant. Meaning there are bigger differences, but modern life isn't particularly demanding physically, so those differences aren't normally all that important in daily life.
But again, perspective is important here - we can look at the same data and say there's virtually no difference (the means parallel reasonably closely, with the groups swapping advantages depending on the metric) or there's a huge difference (large majority of outliers are men, on virtually every metric) and in both cases it would not be so much *wrong* as simply oversimplified, incomplete.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 14 2018, @01:42PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday September 14 2018, @06:38PM (2 children)
If you mean at the chemical level, no, we just don't understand DNA that well yet. (At least, I certainly don't, and I do understand it well enough to generally follow discussions among people that should really know it - and I'm pretty sure they couldn't give you that kind of an answer either.) The pathway from gene to protein to the macro-effects we see in the finished origin is a very long and potentially circuitous path and those are far from well understood.
But at the evolutionary level, it's pretty simple. If you peer through the viewpoint of the DNA itself, consider it the organism, both males and females are simply tools it uses to propagate itself. And the way it's set up, you might say the DNA "wants" them to be different - that's how they serve it best. The females can produce relatively few progeny individually, but of course no progeny can be produced without them. So it makes sense for them to follow a conservative strategy, minimizing their chance of disaster (no output) instead of trying to maximize their output (because of the low ceiling.) Males, on the other hand, can produce virtually unlimited progeny, given sufficient females. So it makes much more sense, from the point of view of the DNA, to play long shots with the males. If half the females in a generation die before giving birth, the population growth will be massively stunted. If half the males of a generation die before fathering children, then the remaining guys will handle things just fine - not only is it not a huge problem in a single generation, like it would be if these were females, it's actually perfectly sustainable. You (the DNA) can lose half your males every generation indefinitely and not be particularly bothered by that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Saturday September 15 2018, @01:45PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday September 15 2018, @04:22PM
I'll have to look up the actual journal article and see if I can digest it when I have time.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 21 2018, @10:23AM
1) Not extra chromosome. Normal guys have no alternates for their Y or their X. Whereas normal women have alternates for all their chromosomes. That's why more colorblind guys (while some women are tetrachromats). Maybe some of the greater male variation is due to this.
2) From the viewpoint of the species men are more expendable than women[1]. So it's best to have the outliers/experiments/pioneers being mostly the guys. If the guy fails and dies, it's no great loss. If the guy succeeds or fails but somehow still manages to breed successfully then perhaps there is some merit to his genes (better toughness etc). This tends to be beneficial to the species as a whole.
That's why in the Youtube fail/awesome videos the ones who tend to be doing stupidly dangerous stuff are mostly the guys.
[1] If you need to grow/restore the population at a high rate you'd need more women than men. The woman is required for at least about 9 months if not longer. The guy is only required for a few minutes if not less. Yes for the best outcome it might be good to have the guy around for much longer but that is not a _requirement_.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tara Li on Friday September 07 2018, @03:57PM (2 children)
One of the problems with statistics is that most people's thinking on the subject is tied very tightly to the classic "bell curve", which is ideally symmetric and infinite. However, this is not always the case - and for that matter, there are a number of other important statistical curves, such as various power curves. For example - when discussing average height. There is, of course, the arguments to be made about "mean, median, and mode", but there's also a matter of symmetry - and I'm not completely sure how the curve of human heights leans, setting aside any differences between biological presentations.
One fun example of this topic is at https://www.autodeskresearch.com/publications/samestats [autodeskresearch.com] - various graphs are created with exactly the same statistics - except that some of the graphs come out to interesting pictures.
Statistics is a *HARD* topic - it's proper name is Sadistics.
("Oh, Master! Regress to the mean!")
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 14 2018, @01:46PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Tara Li on Friday September 14 2018, @04:04PM
It's not really my field - my days of taking sadistics classes are decades in the past. But the bell curve is an ideal, and real-world things will always affect some of this. Especially if you really have two populations hiding in one.
Check this simulation out: https://anydice.com/program/117d7 [anydice.com]
While the two component bell curves are very symmetric, if you look carefully, the combined curve is *not* symmetric. (You can see it in the table data numerically, but if you switch to graph, you can see the curves overlaid and see it there visually).
I don't know if there's something akin to Fourier Transforms to decompose bell curves similar to using them to decompose composites of sine waves, but I imagine there pretty much has to be - and that it would reveal the number of sub-populations in a larger population.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday September 07 2018, @09:26PM
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 09 2018, @12:13AM
I've seen nothing in my life to change my mind that males are the "risk takers", or the experimental group of the species. Males have the largest number of retards, crazies, geniuses, philosophers, daredevils, and whatever else. Females tend to be more "average", and seek "safe" places and positions in life. No matter what might be wrong with people, it's the guys who are most wrong, most often. There are a number of reasons women outlive us, but it seems to always come back to all the many ways that men can just be "wrong".
Thank Darwin for his awards, is all I can say!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday September 14 2018, @01:32PM
Nonsense - I would say "testicle count" shows a more dramatic difference!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves