# Lying with statistics **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [July 6, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453 "2012-07-06T18:49:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![notfrommensa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f14d63/32.png) [@notfrommensa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notfrommensa)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/41 "2012-07-09T18:34:54Z")
Two Headlines that describe the same sporting event from 1980: Moscow: _USSR finishes 2nd in International Track and Field Event, USA next to last._ New York: _USA wins International Track and Field Event_ ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/42 "2012-07-09T19:19:53Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > Similar to the OP, there was [This critique of a claim by the Obama compaign on Good Math Bad Math](http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2012/03/07/obama-campaign-lies-with-bad-math/) not too long ago: > > By looking alternately at the number of donors vs. the amount of donations they’re obscuring the actual differences between the campaigns. It’s entirely possible that both of those statistics could describe the same campaign. Not quite as bad, but I always notice one frequent poster on the bus about the dangers of giving sugary pop to kids: “Only 30% of parents think that their children are obese. But 75% of children are obese.” Now, it’s not too likely, but given the right breakdown of family sizes and a significant correlation of large families with obese children, all the parents could be correct in their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/43 "2012-07-09T19:32:44Z")
> [@notfrommensa](#): > > Two Headlines that describe the same sporting event from 1980: > > Moscow: _USSR finishes 2nd in International Track and Field Event, USA next to last._ That’s such an old joke that I really need a cite that some arm of the USSR actually used that line. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/44 "2012-07-09T19:50:28Z")
My current favorite has to do with medical statistics and early diagnosis. Say that myself and my hypothetical identical twin sister both got the same deadly cancer, a variety that turns out to be totally untreatable. It developed atexactly the same time in both of us. My sister got a screening test that found this cancer early, it was found on June 1st 2009. My cancer was found only when symptoms started appearing which was June 1st 2011 . Both cancers are totally untreatable and we both die on June 1st 2012. My sister had a much better statistical outcome, she survived for 3 years after diagnosis, wheras I only survived for a year after diagnosis ☹ So I guess I should’ve gotten screened, then. ---
**Author:** ![InternetLegend](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/internetlegend/32/13154_2.png) [@InternetLegend](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InternetLegend)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/45 "2012-07-09T20:06:29Z")
Complicating this discussion is the fact that almost 38% of statistics are made up on the spot! ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/46 "2012-07-09T20:20:52Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Thanks for the info. > > But you are missing my point. The article made a big deal about X amount of people (or people earning less than X) being in poverty. But it was the definition they made big deal about when it could not by definition be any other way. > > Now, if the article had made a big deal about something along the lines of “how does a family of Y making less than X make ends meet?!” that would be something else. But thats not what the article did. > > Did you know that a family of 4 earning less than 30K lives in “poverty”?! Btw did you know the definition of poverty is 4 living on less than 30k? Well, no shit Sherlock. Fair enough, but i don’t think i missed your point, because what you’ve said in this post is not how you described it in your first post. In that post, you said: > [@billfish678](#): > > I seem to recall a new story years ago (and I doubt it is unique) along the lines of “20 percent of Americans live in poverty!” > > Which sounds bad until you realize that the definition of poverty was literally the bottom 20 percent (economics wise) of the population. > > Or whatever the actual percentage was… The tautological thinking described in your first post had to do with percentages. I was simply pointing out that this particular tautology was unlikely, given that the poverty level is not defined (at least, by the federal government) as a quintile or some other percentage of the population. The tautology described in your second post is similar, but not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/47 "2012-07-09T20:27:14Z")
> [@InternetLegend](#): > > Complicating this discussion is the fact that almost 38% of statistics are made up on the spot! That’s absurd. It’s well known that over 60% of statistics are well-researched and thoroughly vetted. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/48 "2012-07-09T20:37:21Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > The tautology described in your second post is similar, but not the same thing. Gee, thanks for point that out :rolleyes: And I disagree. It’s the same thing. The uselessness of the story based upon a definition of what poverty is to make some kind of shocking statement about what poverty was because this X sized set of people were in poverty because thats what the definition of poverty was. Or something like that. So, it’s an amount of money, not a percentage (if it was actual Federal numbers being bandied about and not some state or local measure that I don’t recall). BFD. Another funny thing about the article was it put a local spin on it. In an area that has a pretty damn low local cost of living, particularly if you don’t mind living a crap trailer outside of town. And neuroman, that was funny. I’ll have to try to remember that one. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/49 "2012-07-09T20:40:01Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Gee, thanks for point that out :rolleyes: > > And I disagree. It’s the same thing. So which is it? Is it so obviously the same thing that my pointing it out required a rolleyes? Or is it not the same thing? Hint: it’s #2. If you don’t understand why, i can explain it very slowly for you. Otherwise, you know what you can do with your smiley. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/50 "2012-07-10T17:03:44Z")
> [@purple\_cow](#): > > We all know the old quote (Twain or whoever). What are your favorite (or most hated) examples. Many will be political but i’d like to keep value judgements out of it and focus how the statistics are fudged to make them say something they don’t really support. > > My current one is, of course, unemployment is higher now than when Obama took office. I don’t go a day without hearing it. Well yes, it was 7.8% when he was inaugurated. But it was 6.1% in September 2008 and 9.4% by May 2009 and over 10% by July so the trend wasn’t exactly positive. That’s not a lie with statistics. Just because you prefer statistics that support your position over statistics that don’t doesn’t make the other stats lies. > [@Dr.Love](#): > > Similar to the OP, there was [This critique of a claim by the Obama compaign on Good Math Bad Math](http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2012/03/07/obama-campaign-lies-with-bad-math/) not too long ago: > > By looking alternately at the number of donors vs. the amount of donations they’re obscuring the actual differences between the campaigns. It’s entirely possible that both of those statistics could describe the same campaign. This is similar to the stats welfare advocates like to put out about how “most welfare recipients are on welfare for less than X amount of time”, which obscures the fact that one long term recipient is the equivalent of many many short term ones. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/51 "2012-07-10T17:23:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Hint: it’s #2. If you don’t understand why, i can explain it very slowly for you. Otherwise, you know what you can do with your smiley. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Shark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shark)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/52 "2012-07-10T17:35:23Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > I like to point out that the above statement is incorrect. And changing “average” to “median” or "below’ to “no better than” won’t fix the problem. Wait a minute, you mean I lied with statistics. I better start a thread about that asap.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Enright3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/enright3/32/2897_2.png) [@Enright3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enright3)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/53 "2012-07-10T21:40:48Z")
One of my favorites; I’m I’m frankly surprised no one has posted it yet… On average, humans have less than two legs. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/54 "2012-07-10T22:02:21Z")
The average human being has approximately one testicle and one ovary. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453/55 "2012-07-10T22:32:10Z")
And then there’s [this Dilbert comic](http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-05-08/)… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-with-statistics/627453.md?page=2)