|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 11, 2016 17:49:25 GMT -5
The problem with statistics is they are too easily manipulated. Take this simple math problem.....
Three men go to stay at a motel, and the man at the desk charges them $30.00 for a room. They split the cost ten dollars each. Later the manager tells the desk man that he overcharged the men, that the actual cost should have been $25.00. The manager gives the bellboy $5.00 and tells him to give it to the men.
The bellboy, however, decides to cheat the men and pockets $2.00, giving each of the men only one dollar.
Now each man has paid $9.00 to stay in the room and 3 x $9.00 = $27.00. The bellboy has pocketed $2.00. $27.00 + $2.00 = $29.00 - so where is the missing $1.00?
It is basically what the esteemed Dr does when he throws his graphs and charts out to the hounds. Cherry pick your data, divert attention away from the actual issue and when you get caught, apologize and claim it was an honest mistake.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 11, 2016 20:12:44 GMT -5
$30.00-25.00=5.00-3.00=2.00
Total amount originally charged minus the new cost of the room=the amount refunded minus the money given to the men= the money pocketed.
Or
25.00 + 3.00 + 2.00 = $30.00
The new total amount charged for the room plus the money given to the men plus the money pocketed = the original amount charged for the room.
The simplest approach is normally the best one. (The principle of Occam's Razor)
Actually those men paid $9.33 each rounded off to the nearest cent [$28.00\3=$9.33.] and not $9.00.
Had the money not been pocketed, each man would have paid $8.33. [$25.00\3=$8.33 There is the missing dollar.
|
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58 
|
Post by bnb on Aug 11, 2016 21:27:30 GMT -5
See the results don't fit when done correctly so let's find a way to discredit the stats.
Why would I expect differently.
Editors note; irrelevant comments deleted
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 12, 2016 7:11:29 GMT -5
See the results don't fit when done correctly so let's find a way to discredit the stats. Why would I expect differently. You are getting off topic. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? |
|
bnb
restricted
Posts: 58
|
Post by bnb on Aug 12, 2016 13:59:39 GMT -5
See the results don't fit when done correctly so let's find a way to discredit the stats. Why would I expect differently. You are getting off topic. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? And the reason for this post? Not on topic. As you could see mine was edited. To stay on topic though..... I don't see any thing wrong with statistics used by the dnr. |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Aug 12, 2016 16:38:45 GMT -5
I did not see the DNR mentioned by the OP. In review this is what he said
The only thing he left out is any one questing this manipulation by jim brauker brings on the you are just dumb and I am smart so I am right. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 12, 2016 17:21:40 GMT -5
I did not see the DNR mentioned by the OP. In review this is what he said
The only thing he left out is any one quest ing this manipulation by jim brauker brings on the you are just dumb and I am smart so I am right. Bingo! This thread is in no way referencing the MI/DNR. I am just pointing out how you can manipulate data, plain and simple. I am really not a smart man, but I can figure out the math problem in simpler terms than Ridge can. The whole math problem is over $5. $3 are positive(he gave them back) and $2 are negative(he took them away). 25+3-2=26. What happened to the other 4 dollars? |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 12, 2016 20:04:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 15, 2016 23:40:35 GMT -5
That link was good reading! All I know is that those four dollars are not in my pocket.  |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 15, 2016 23:44:59 GMT -5
5-2=3 plus the one from the first word problem is 4.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Aug 16, 2016 7:37:10 GMT -5
So you see, my point is,someone can make data look much different than it really is. It still is the same data, it's just presented differently. It's kind of like typos, some are so bad you have to try and decide what the author meant. But might not some typos be intentional so the author could feign ignorance when questioned? This one caught my attention, especially their #1; www.cracked.com/article_20318_the-5-most-popular-ways-statistics-are-used-to-lie-to-you.htmlA statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions. ~M.J. Moroney |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Aug 17, 2016 10:03:19 GMT -5
That article is both hilarious and right on the mark at the same time. It speaks directly to the fallacies of MARs.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 16, 2016 9:13:36 GMT -5
Had to bring this back. I just visited the LPDMI site, yes they are still active. They chart everything in percentages. Are people really that gullible? Deer harvest could drop in half but the percentages show that 2 1/2 year and older deer harvest went up expotentially. HUH? This is the shi* out NRC members are eating up! |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 16, 2016 17:01:37 GMT -5
I had to check out their page. It is just like it never went on hiatus, same old gang bullying tactics they used 3 yrs ago. The rhetoric is the same, it's just different parrots mimicking the same PHD. Almost word for word. No differing opinions tolerated there. It won't be long and all of the naysayers will be banned and they can continue their gestapo tactics unimpeded.
The age charts are a no brainer. If you take a large percentage of an age group off the table, something should change.
|
|
