Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stat-l
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Stat-L:ho3
From: ho3@stat-l (Timothy Hall)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: The meaning of statistics
Message-ID: <316@stat-l>
Date: Thu, 21-Feb-85 17:37:33 EST
Article-I.D.: stat-l.316
Posted: Thu Feb 21 17:37:33 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Feb-85 03:01:09 EST
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Dept.
Lines: 52

>From: guest@hplabs.UUCP (HP Labs Guest/guest)
>Newsgroups: net.motss
>Subject: Re: Heterosexual Questionnaire
>
>
>> 	I find it very amusing that ...hplabs!guest was quibbling about the
>> three "statistical questions" (disproportionately more heterosexuals in
>> mental homes, more heterosexual child abusers ("why", he asked, "didn't
>> you say *disproportionately more?"), and disproportionately more hetero-
>> sexual criminals and welfare recipients).  For one thing, I'd guess that
>> the main point is  that meaningless statistics are often used like this
>> *against* homosexuals. Another thing is that these statistics are *very*
>> likely, considering just the demographics - where most homosexuals are
>> and where most mental patients, criminals, and welfare recipients are.
>> (Of course, I wouldn't go on this alone, but I'd be less likely to get
>> all critical with a questionnaire that is supposed to be, after all,
>> facetious.)
>> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer

>    But the statistics aren't meaningless if they're stated
>as in those the two questions that said "disproportionate".

     ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

>Are those data true, or simply reversals of common anti-gay
>prejudices?  It wasn't clear that the questionaire was facetious.
>(This reinforces my contention that there is no way to clearly
>express any thought other than a program over the net.  Was the
>questionaire merely facetious?)  I thought that it had
>questions that it was good for me to consider.  After all,
>why shouldn't I turn around the prejudices and see where I stand.
>
>    I made my stand on meaningless statistics quite clear (to me)
>in my posting.  Why to you so vehemently agree with me?  Was it
>not clear that I saw that they might be meaningless?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The correct response when someone hits you with a statistic is not
>to say "That's meaningless!"  You should determine what the caveats,
>withheld information, limitations, and inapplicabilities of the
>data are; then you can zing them with the stats.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Please leave the meaning of statistics to statistical people!


						Tim Hall
						Department of Statistics
						Purdue University
						...inuxc!pur-ee!stat-l:ho3