to think that people who do not understand that an anecdote is not the same as a statistic are stupid?

[turningvioletviolet]

Listening to Jeremy Vine (for my sins). Topic is 'breastfed children are more clever than those who aren't' (which is neither here nor there), based on a Brazilian study.

But the amount of people who are texting in saying 'my child wasn't breastfed and is top of the top school in the country so therefore the study IS NOT TRUE' or conversely that they did breastfeed and their child is thick as pig s**t so the study IS NOT TRUE.

Your anecdote means NOTHING.

And so ends my daily rant at the Jeremy Vine show.

Sorry if this is a thick question (statistics are not my strong point) but did this study compare children whose parents have the same IQ and whose education levels and wealth were exactly the same and did the children tested go to same schools in terms of 'quality'?

Oh god it's sooo bollocks, I hate it. I can't remember what the thread was but there was one recently which had a statistic such as 44%/56% of people are X, blah blah as proof of something and then people kept posting being surprised that they existed in the minority group and saying it was wrong.

Well, yes. You're in the 44%. Somebody has to be. Otherwise it would be 0%!!

YABU. There lies , lies and damned statistics.

Even the stats won't show what the headlines say.

The most they could say is there's a correlation.

My favourite BS study is the one done on the US proving children with books in the home do better at school.

Which led to the UK and other US states giving every child a free book.

Guess what. The reason those children (on average!) did better in school was not because there was a book in their house.

How much does book start cost the govt every year?

Hahaha. Was that really what bookstart was all about??

I enjoy this site.

www.tylervigen.com/

Not being funny but why do people sa they've done things ' for their sins ' ?

Probably as "stupid" as people who believe something to be fact, because "a report on the radio/TV says...."

As others have pointed out, you can adjust the question(s) or adjust the participant group to make your statistics "prove" whatever you want.
True research is very, very, very different from 'statistics' that get quoted in the media day in , day out.

Here's the study I think: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100520213116.htm

breastfed children are more clever than those who aren't

That isn't true though, is it? So i'd think it's the people that nod in agreement to such a stupid sweeping statement that are the idiots tbh.

YANBU. IMO it reads exactly the same as "your babe your way hun."

OK OK, so people are right that the media reports scientific finding in a stupid and misleading way, there is confirmation bias, even among scientists. Scientific method is not perfect, particularly around things that can't be studied in an assigned, double blind way. Controls are not perfect. As the question was asked above; with correlations you can only try to correct for education, income, geography and so on.

However, I guarantee that most of the people on this thread have had some part of their life improved, or their life saved, by science and scientific method. Not dead of polio; thank science. Wearing a seat-belt; you may be alive because of statistics. Still got your teeth; science. Don't want your doctor to go straight from a corpse to you; thank statistics and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis.

Statistics and their application literally proved hand-washing saved lives. BEFORE germ theory. They had no idea why it worked, but it did. Don't blame statistics, blame stupid science reporters and headline-grasping media.

'I'm not a fan of statistics' - that's a bit like saying 'I'm not a fan of gravity'. They are mathematical representations of reality, you can't disagree with them!

Aren't statistics a large collection of simplified and categorised anecdotes?

Er, no, not really!

It's a bit like saying 'maths is essentially just numbers'!

I'm not a fan of statistics is a shortcut for saying I'm not a fan of drawing conclusions from one study.

Also it's a shortcut for saying it doesn't matter if stats say X% do better and Y% do worse - it matters if you are in the X group or the Y group.

YANBU.

It's really irritating. It happens all the time on MN threads...but I suppose that's what "chatting" is all about, lol.

Language is just words with a bit of icing on top?

Lol, they are a mathematical slice of the reality that was sampled for that particular (however badly designed) survey, just in case you were in any doubt.

A lot of the statistical 'truths' can be very easily undone just by looking at the flaws in the research design.

Very easy to find what you want and claim it is uber-scientific.

Statistics are mostly bollocks, with a thread of the possible, particularly as represented by hysteria in the media in ways that suggest that the editors don't understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation.

But as the general populace don't either, let's call it fact, eh?

Well hold on. Yes it may be a bit stupid to give one anecdotal example as 'evidence' that challenges statistics. But, for e.g, I know plenty of formula fed children that are academically superior then I'm going to say that on here and in RL and fuck the data.

Statistics and their application proved hand washing saves lives

Well my grandma knows someone who never washed his hands and he lived til he was 107, so it just shows you don't need to wash your hands.

Bunny let's hope he wasn't dissecting cadavers.

thatsucks you don't understand what these studies look at. If every single BF child had a 2 point IQ bump and every FF child didn't, there would be a statistical difference but you wouldn't be able to discern it. My average 100 would be a 102, giving me almost no extra advantage at all. I would probably pass the same exams, go to the same university and be intelligent or stupid. Those small differences are studied because across populations, they make a large difference.

Say that BFing causes a 1% reduction in stomach bugs in babies. That would probably make no difference to me/you. But across the UK or the world that's extra lives saved, money saved, problems solved. Just because you can't discern it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be studied. In fact, it makes it massively more important to study it. Because you won't know unless you study it.

I think there is a lot of confusion here about what statistics actually are. They are simply how research is reported and analysed.

To say that statistics are rubbish because they are sometimes done badly is like saying Michelangelo is a terrible artist just because lots of people paint badly!

All the medicines that save your lives: because of statistics telling us which work.
All the vaccines that prevent your children from dying horribly: statistics.
The safety features in your cars, the way your roads are planned ,the public transport system...all statistics.
Your education systems, your tv schedules, your LIVES ,are all based on statistics, what is available in your world is oftn because of what has been proven to work or be good or be profitable, because of statistics.

They are just a mathematical representation of reality. If you don't understand them, that doesn't make them wrong.

For example
*Breastfed children are more clever than those who aren't

That isn't true though, is it? So i'd think it's the people that nod in agreement to such a stupid sweeping statement that are the idiots tbh*

It seems this IS true, on a population level. Of course any given FF child could be far more intelligent than any given BF child. But when you look at very large numbers, what you find is that BF children are more likely to have slightly higher IQ's. They tend to be a little healthier. It's not a given, its a likelihood, a tendency.
It's not a personal comment on your parenting, its just maths.

It's like someone saying I've smoked all my life and I've never been ill. Ok, but no-one is going to take from that that smoking doesn't cause serious illnesses. Statistics tell us otherwise, and no-one is arguing about those stats.

I think there is a political edge to all this too. Now there is pressure, in the form of statistical data, regarding the choices women make over their own bodies (if indeed they have the choice available to them).

Now I support the idea of breastfeeding, why not? If you are able and comfortable doing it, it is free and what our bodies are generally designed to do. I breast fed myself.

What I don't like is reducing womens' choices, which this study seems to be designed to do. Remember, not so long ago, there was pressure put on women to formula feed, so you cannot blame women's distrust of theses announcements.