So…I had this argument with my bf. I can’t really remember how it began, but it ended with us both storming out the house. The argument was about statistics.
…I was talking about how figures can be misleading, etc, ect. - i don’t know why I was talking about this; I think it was something to do with the healthcare positions I’m applying to. Anyway - along the course of the argument, I mention ‘8 out of 9 cats prefer whiskers’ - it’s a silly example, but this was a silly argument about people using silly figures to prove silly points. I don’t think either of us had any direction; it was just a argument for argument’s sake.
He eventually concluded by going off on a wild tangent; talking about Milgram’s study, and how it wasn’t representative because only a few people participated. -I completely failed to see what he was trying to say - Milgram’s experiment was not only immoral, but also leading. He then told me that all statistics are stupid. Meaningless. All the same.
-I don’t know why, but at this point I just got fed up. I stormed out, and am now eating pudding by myself in a cafe.
Anyway - there you go. I don’t really know why I wrote this.
Statistics are often misunderstood, misused, and abused. A lot of the stats put forth in the media fall in that category. However, when properly applied, statistics are powerful tools.
For example, if you’re applying for a research grant, the funding agency often requires that your proposal include detailed statistical analyses just to demonstrate that your study will even be capable of reliably measuring what it proposes to measure. The funding agency understands statistics, and so the applicant had better understand them too; if he/she does (and if the study’s objectives are worthwhile), then the grant will get funded, and the study has a high probability of coming to some meaningful conclusions that are well-supported by further statistical work. Statistics used in this way are far from stupid and meaningless.
Cuz he was being a dick. A statement like his indicates he wasn’t pursuing a dialectical argument; rather, his goal was eristic.
you should definitely read into this too much and take it as a sign that something deeper is wrong, and that the bedrock of the relationship is fundamentally flawed.
Just by the way, the impact of the Milgrim study doesn’t have to do with statistics. According people’s perceptions of human nature at the time nobody was expected to obey the experimenter’s orders.
There is clearly an “and” in the subject line of the OP. The pudding and stats are non-optional. If you can’t find a way to integrate them into your sex, you’re out of luck.
