Fun with Statistics

[AKR]

i wrote this for one of my speeches in speech class in college. i thought of it the other day when yet, another uneducated d-bag pulled out stats, and ignored the first rule: correlation does not necessitate causation. the following is dedicated to these types of people. i'll show you just how dumb of hypothesis you can try to make when misusing stats.

DOWN WITH PANTS
In the hopes of creating a pants free America

You?re probably wondering why I?m wearing a robe instead of pants today. Well, I?ve been doing some soul searching, and I?ve come to the conclusion that I?ve been in denial.

I looked back at all the sad, frustrating times in my life that had obvious major impacts on me: the day my first girlfriend had to break up with me because her parents found out we were making out up in the church balcony; the day I realized that captain crunch might not be around forever; and the day they cancelled ren and stimpy.

There was one common thread through all of this: I was always wearing pants.

You see, within our country, and in many other countries around the world, the dark forces of pants have been imbedded into our cultures. It goes so deep, and its growing power over us has been so gradual, that most of us don?t even realize it.

Let me tell you a little about the history of pants and it?s path of destruction. On the surface, these incidents might look totally unrelated to pants, but that?s what our government wants you to think.

In 1915, during WWI, 56,000 Russian pants-wearing soldiers died miserable deaths. Some say it was due to chemical warfare, but you don?t have to look any further than the pants.

Between 1775 and 1784, 4,435 American soldiers died in the Revolutionary War, all of which were wearing pants.

In 2001, 41,821 people died in auto-crashes. 96% of these victims had pants in the vehicle.

I think any idiot can see the pattern here.

On a personal level, I lost my grandpa to pants. Do you know what it?s like for an eleven-year-old to find his grandpa lying lifeless on the couch, wearing PANTS. They said it was a heart attack, but I know better.

Through out history, a lot of terrible, despicable people have worn pants. Hitler? He wore pants. Jack the Ripper-He wore pants too. Barbara Streisannd-pants. Charles Manson? He wore TWO pairs of pants.

98% of all crime in this country are committed by people wearing pants; the other 2% is by those streakers, you know, the ones that run across the field at soccer games. Do you know why they?re getting chased by the authorities; why they get put in jail? Because they refuse to wear pants.

Deep inside, I think you all know that pants are the root of all evil. But it?s hard to admit it to yourself. It?s easy to get caught up in the glamour of wearing pants. I?ve done it too.

But you don?t have to be a slave to pants anymore. Now, I don?t want you all to take your pants of right now?cuz I just don?t wanna see all of?that? And some of you might not be ready to do away with pants just yet, but go home and do some thinking, and when you find the courage, you know what to do?free yourself from the shackles of pants, and shout, ?DOWN WITH PANTS!?

[devire1]

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

u haven't shown that bad things r more likely to happen to people that wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

i mean really, have the standards of college really fallen this low?

[LatissimusDorsi]

Originally Posted by devire1

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

I think everyones going to be clapping for u...

[AKR]

Originally Posted by devire1

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

i mean really, have the standards of college really fallen this low?

WHOOOOOSH.


let's see if anyone can guess what that sound is.

[devire1]

Originally Posted by AKR

WHOOOOOSH.


let's see if anyone can guess what that sound is.

of course correlation doesn't mean causation, but

u've tried to show that correlation does not mean causation by using a scenario that doesn't even have a correlation to begin with.

in the scenario u used, u didn't show that people wearing pants were more likely to have bad things happen to them.

[DaCougarMech]

Originally Posted by devire1

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

i mean really, have the standards of college really fallen this low?

rofl. i hope your post was a joke

[Pleb]

Originally Posted by devire1

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

u haven't shown that bad things r more likely to happen to people that wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

i mean really, have the standards of college really fallen this low?

i lold,











then shuck my head

[Snoopis]

Funny ****, sounds like something I would have written.

[nnjj112255kkllo9]

Originally Posted by devire1

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

u haven't shown that bad things r more likely to happen to people that wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

i mean really, have the standards of college really fallen this low?

This has to be a joke...please say you are joking

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by devire1

in the scenario u used, u didn't show that people wearing pants were more likely to have bad things happen to them.

qft

[R.T.B.]

Originally Posted by devire1

of course correlation doesn't mean causation, but

u've tried to show that correlation does not mean causation by using a scenario that doesn't even have a correlation to begin with.

in the scenario u used, u didn't show that people wearing pants were more likely to have bad things happen to them.

yo, I think the OP is in on "the joke"

and yes, there is a correlation, just no causation

edit: actually having read your first post again, you're right, there is no correlation. the OP doesn't know what the definition of correlation is

[R.T.B.]

Originally Posted by DaCougarMech

rofl. i hope your post was a joke

Originally Posted by Pleb

i lold,











then shuck my head

Originally Posted by agno

This has to be a joke...please say you are joking

actually he's right

[JAGERBOY]

Good read, I want Cap'n Crunch now.

[TricepsNGirls]

Originally Posted by devire1

another useless thread brought to u by akr.

everyone clap for the retard.

i hope this isn't too complicated to wrap ur tiny head around, but there is no correlation between wearing pants and all those negative things. the majority of people wear pants so the majority of bad things is expected to happen to people who wear pants.

u haven't shown that bad things r more likely to happen to people that wear pants.

if u actually took the time to write all that urself i truely feel sorry for u.

i mean really, have the standards of college really fallen this low?

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

qft

Satire, folks.

[xer0xed]

Sounds like an excellent argument for Pant Control

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by TricepsNGirls

Satire, folks.

yes, I realize that; but it's used to try and prove a point, which devire is disagreeing with

[TricepsNGirls]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

yes, I realize that; but it's used to try and prove a point, which devire is disagreeing with

His point is proved quite well. Pant-wearing is heavily correlated with incidence of death in his examples.

[devire1]

Originally Posted by TricepsNGirls

Satire, folks.

yes, it's obviously satire.

he's trying to show that correlation does not mean causation by showing that there is a correlation between people wearing pants and bad things happening to them. obviously wearing pants isn't the cause of those bad things.

but the OP shows he does not understand what correlation means, because there is no correlation between wearing pants and bad things happening. people that wear pants r just about as likely to experience one of those bad things as people that don't wear pants.

[devire1]

Originally Posted by TricepsNGirls

His point is proved quite well. Pant-wearing is heavily correlated with incidence of death in his examples.

actually no it isn't.

u need to understand the difference between percentages and raw numbers.

all he has shown is that more people die with their pants on, but the majority of people wear pants, so that should be expected. if he wanted to show a correlation he would have to compare the rates of death between people that don't wear pants and people that wear pants.

[Nagalfar]

A great philosopher, some people called him a writer by the name of Samuel Clements, who had this to say about statistics, Statistics are like a lady of the evening, once you get them down, you can pretty much get them to much do what ever you want.

[TricepsNGirls]

Originally Posted by devire1

yes, it's obviously satire.

he's trying to show that correlation does not mean causation by showing that there is a correlation between people wearing pants and bad things happening to them. obviously wearing pants isn't the cause of those bad things.

but the OP shows he does not understand what correlation means, because there is no correlation between wearing pants and bad things happening. people that wear pants r just about as likely to experience one of those bad things as people that don't wear pants.

It's safe to say that there are far more accidents occuring when people are wearing pants than not. The majority of people wear pants during the majority of the day.

Your last argument is still one for causation.

Also, granted, his examples are not representative of casualties as a whole, but he uses both raw numbers and percentages in ignorance, which is the point after all.

[devire1]

Originally Posted by TricepsNGirls

It's safe to say that there are far more accidents occuring when people are wearing pants than not. The majority of people wear pants during the majority of the day.

Your last argument is still one for causation.

Also, granted, his examples are not representative of casualties as a whole, but he uses both raw numbers and percentages in ignorance, which is the point after all.

the fact remains that he failed to show a correlation.

if he wanted to show a correlation, he should have taken the number of deaths of people that wear pants divided by the number of people that wear pants and the number of deaths of people that don't wear pants divided by the number of people that don't wear pants.

if the first number was significantly larger then the second or vice versa, than there would be a correlation.

i don't even think he even mentions the number of deaths of people that don't wear pants.

[JAGERBOY]

Originally Posted by devire1

the fact remains that he failed to show a correlation.

if he wanted to show a correlation, he should have taken the number of deaths of people that wear pants divided by the number of people that wear pants and the number of deaths of people that don't wear pants divided by the number of people that don't wear pants.

if the first number was significantly larger then the second or vice versa, than there would be a correlation.

i don't even think he even mentions the number of deaths of people that don't wear pants.

Wow. Because its assumed for simplisity purposes that during the majority of the day, and the majority of peoples lives, they are wearing pants. If you dont see this assumption then you will not get the satire. Lets say he HAD included the percentage of deaths of non pants wearers and it was significantly lower, what would you have said then?

[devire1]

Originally Posted by JAGERBOY

Wow. Because its assumed for simplisity purposes that during the majority of the day, and the majority of peoples lives, they are wearing pants. If you dont see this assumption then you will not get the satire. Lets say he HAD included the percentage of deaths of non pants wearers and it was significantly lower, what would you have said then?

nothing. but he didn't.

[JAGERBOY]

Originally Posted by devire1

nothing. but he didn't.

Then essentially you are arguing just to argue with no real point.

Negged.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by JAGERBOY

Then essentially you are arguing just to argue with no real point.

Negged.

he's arguing that he didn't present the case properly, and he's also arguing against what this argument, if correct insinuates. (you'd have to be active in other threads) by disproving one, he is attempting to disprove the other

[devire1]

Originally Posted by JAGERBOY

Then essentially you are arguing just to argue with no real point.

Negged.

the point is the OPer is a moron that doesn't know what a correlation is.

lol.

[JAGERBOY]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

he's arguing that he didn't present the case properly, and he's also arguing against what this argument, if correct insinuates. (you'd have to be active in other threads) by disproving one, he is attempting to disprove the other

Um, lets see, to begin with, the "argument" is purposely ridiculous to begin with. We assume that most relatively smart people can put together that most people, during most of the day, are wearing pants. So when the majority of bad things happen, most people just so happen to be wearing pants. His argument is not meant to be taken seriously, so serious statistics aren't needed. Stop grasping at straws here, you are reading WAY too deep into this.

[JAGERBOY]

Originally Posted by devire1

the point is the OPer is a moron that doesn't know what a correlation is.

lol.

Do you?

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by JAGERBOY

Um, lets see, to begin with, the "argument" is purposely ridiculous to begin with. We assume that most relatively smart people can put together that most people, during most of the day, are wearing pants. So when the majority of bad things happen, most people just so happen to be wearing pants. His argument is not meant to be taken seriously, so serious statistics aren't needed. Stop grasping at straws here, you are reading WAY too deep into this.

I know the OP's pants argument isn't meant to be taken seriously, that's pretty obvious, but as I said, it has implications in other correlative issues, that have been discussed in other threads that you must have missed.