tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post691954538526074811..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: Statistical IlliteracyKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-87140929965752292612008-03-14T22:15:00.000-04:002008-03-14T22:15:00.000-04:00Let's see if I get this right.If 290 people came o...Let's see if I get this right.<BR/><BR/>If 290 people came over my house to visit, that would be "a lot" of people.<BR/><BR/>And, if 290 million people tried to cram their way into my house, well, that'd be "a lot" as well.<BR/><BR/>But, in a country like the US with 300 million people, 290 people represent nearly none of the population, while 290 million people represent nearly all of the population.<BR/><BR/>So, a lot = nearly none = nearly all.<BR/><BR/>Gee, that makes a lot of sense.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let's say there's a million to one chance of my contracting a rare disease in any given year. In the U.S. about 300 people would contract this disease every year. That's a lot of people. Even the rarest of events yields a lot of people in countries like the US.<BR/><BR/>And of course historically speaking, child poverty in the US is lot lower that in was 50 years ago adn a lot lower than it is in most of the rest of the world today, expecially if you measure poverty on an absolute scale instead of a relative scale, and if you and in all the forms of "income" we currently exclude.<BR/><BR/>So, while we may excuse the layman for employing such sloppy terminology, the Washington Post journalist, the Profosser of education policy, Stephen Downes, and me are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard when opining on statistical matters unless, of course, we are trying to convey a false impression.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-72922927511482917742008-03-14T17:13:00.000-04:002008-03-14T17:13:00.000-04:00If 22 percent of the population went downtown and ...If 22 percent of the population went downtown and protested, we'd say "a lot" of people protested.<BR/><BR/>In new York, that would be just under 2 million people. That's "a lot", isn't it?<BR/><BR/>Across the United States, it's almost 70 million people. That's "a lot" isn't it?<BR/><BR/>There are roughly 73 million children in the U.S. www.childtrendsdatabank.org/pdf/53_PDF.pdf<BR/>That's about 16 million children.<BR/><BR/>The tenor of this blog is such that the author can look at 16 million children living in poverty and say, "That's not a lot."<BR/><BR/>And somehow he thinks that he stakes out the moral high ground.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-56013619779376761632008-03-14T04:43:00.000-04:002008-03-14T04:43:00.000-04:00I want to recommend "super duper" for 80% and "shi...<I>I want to recommend "super duper" for 80% and "shiiiit!" for 90%.</I><BR/><BR/>LOL!Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.com