Jamie Hale

Jamie Hale

Saturday, December 17, 2011

"Person-Who" Statistics

Results of scientific studies are stated in probabilistic terms. Science is not in the business of making claims of absolute certainty (refer to bead model of truth). When science describes, predicts or explains something, it is understood that the conclusion is tentative. This willingness to admit fallibility is probably one of science’s biggest strengths. In virtually every other area of knowledge acquisition, admitting fallibility is not a virtue, but a severe weakness.

Person-who statistics: situations in which well-established statistical trends are questioned because someone knows a “person who” went against the trend (Stanovich, 2007). For example, “Look at my grandpa, he is ninety years old, has been smoking since he was in thirteen, and is still healthy”, implying smoking is not bad for health. Learning to think probabilistically is an important trait that can increase one's ability to think more accurately. Person-who statistics is a ubiquitous phenomenon.

Research shows people have a difficult time thinking probabilistically. People like things stated in terms of absolute. However, many things cannot be explained in those terms, and in fact when referring to causation in everyday life we are often wrong. Determining what causes something is not as simple as we would like to think.

The conclusions drawn from scientific research are probabilistic- generalizations that are correct most of the time, but not every time. People often weight anecdotal evidence more heavily than probabilistic information. This is an error in thinking, and leads to bad decisions, and often, irrational thinking.

References

Stanovich, K. (2007). How To Think Straight About Psychology. Boston, MA: Pearson.

1 comments:

  1. Excellent, Jamie!

    Yes, the "I know a Person who..." argument against a general rule is an argument from an EXCEPTION to that rule, usually made in order to try and rationalize counterproductive choices/actions, or to avoid accepting an inconvenient conclusion.

    If people who make "I know a Person who..." arguments would just stop and THINK about it, they would realize that betting against a general rule is NOT the SMART way to bet, because even IF once in a while one wins such a bet, one will generally lose (else, there'd not be that general rule).

    By the way, 83.7% of all statistics are just made-up on the spot.

    -- Frank

    [There is 100% chance that I just made that last up.]

    ReplyDelete