99% of people who hate certifcation are not certfied

sprkymrk

Mark Twain wrote:

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Pash

If we were all to beleive statistics then our coffee intake,lack of water, lack of x in our diet would have killed us already. I hate studies and statistics.

Mishra

It depends on how the stats are handled.

If I research how many people are charged with traffic violations on streets, then post the streets with the most traffic violations, then it is going to be pretty hard fact. You can read those stats and trust that it is almost 100% correct.

But if you go out and take surveys and rely on people to give you facts, then your stats are going to be way out of wack.

There is also statistical playing that can go on when they turn facts around in their favor. It is like stories that has quotes that don't quote the entire sentence or paragraph.

garv221

mikej412 wrote:

87% of people who make up statistics to make a point will ignore requests for the source of the statistic -- the other 13% will attribute it to some little known or made up journal.

S*x Panther- 60% of the time, it works every time.

Schluep

Mishra wrote:

It depends on how the stats are handled.

If I research how many people are charged with traffic violations on streets, then post the streets with the most traffic violations, then it is going to be pretty hard fact. You can read those stats and trust that it is almost 100% correct.

But if you go out and take surveys and rely on people to give you facts, then your stats are going to be way out of wack.

There is also statistical playing that can go on when they turn facts around in their favor. It is like stories that has quotes that don't quote the entire sentence or paragraph.

You hit the nail on the head with your final two paragraphs.

The first example you gave seems cut and dry, however that is not how the facts are presented unless it meets the goals of a media trying to create a big story. Consider the following regarding that example:

The Garden State Parkway averages 50,000 vehicles travelling per day in it's busier Counties (Camden for example) and a fictional Boondocks Rd averages 50 vehicles per day. There are 15 traffic violations per day on Route 19 and 0.10 per day on Boondocks Rd.

One statistician will adjust their number of traffic violations to compare in terms of the equivalent number of cars travelling. For example, since (50,000 / 50 ) = 1000 then the assumption is made that if 50,000 vehicles drove on Boondocks Rd per day that (0.10 x 1000) = 100 traffic violations per day. This fictional number of 100 traffic violations per day is far greater than the 15 per day on that stretch of the Garden State Parkway.

Another statistician will adjust their number of traffic violations to compare in terms of the length of road. Boondocks Rd is 10,000 feet long. The Garden State Parkway stretches for many miles across the state of New Jersey. A similar number adjustment could occur here as outlined above.

A third statistician may make both of the above adjustments.

A fourth may just look at the total number of violations on each road.

All four of these statisticians will public a detailed report outlining their findings. Since more than two roads will be involved it will result in a several thousand page report that isn't going to be published in your newspaper. The media will take the numbers that look the worst completely out of context from the third study and state "The number of traffic violations on Boondocks Rd are thousands of times higher than on the Garden State Parkway despite their differences in size and traffic." There will be a short story with an interview from a police officer about how they are considering stepping up enforcement on Boonsdocks Rd and a reference to the organization that produced the thousand page report that none of the readers will bother to check and see what the statistics were actually based on.




Here are some links from one statistical play I saw in the papers recently:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5834/82

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=419040&in_page_id=1879

http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2007/08/men_blah_blah_women_blah_blah_1.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23376154-details/Women+talk+three+times+as+much+as+men,+says+study/article.do

One study shows women talk approximately three times as much as men (20,000 words compared to 7,000 words) and the other says they talk the same amount (16,000 words each). There were headlines released all around the world in both cases. Many of them contained nothing more than a headline and some of these numbers, and almost none of them provided additional details regarding the sources of the studies. A few did provide some more detail, but most did not and most people quote the studies based upon their headlines. Further analyses shows the following:

The study showing they talk the same amount was performed on less than 400 carefully selected college students who knew the reason for the study and had a recorder to carry around with them to speak into. Some people in the study admitted to knowlingly talking more or less than they usually do due to the presense of the recorder and trying to achieve their own desired results. This value was extrapolated out to represent all men and women in the world.

The other study was based on a self-proclaimed feminist provider her analyses of "Thousands of scientific studies." A few of the studies were quoted in her book with no analyses of the studies. Further research shows the few she mentioned were survey based studies where people were asked questions like: "Who talks more, your Mom or your Dad" or "Who talks more, you or your husband". Many other studies apparently were not inlcuded in the "thousands" used and no reference was made of disputing studies.

Do either of these studies seem like they were conducted in an accurate way? I do not think so. Do we really know who talks more based upon any of this data? Again, not a chance. They do however both create big stories for the media to capitilize on and proceed with very mis-leading headlines.

theseman

I beleive there is substance to this. There are exceptions of course, but many people I know that do not certify do not think highly of certifications. Those that hold certs in high regard want them, and acheive them.

-Travis

RussS

Mishra wrote:

It depends on how the stats are handled.

If I research how many people are charged with traffic violations on streets, then post the streets with the most traffic violations, then it is going to be pretty hard fact. You can read those stats and trust that it is almost 100% correct.

Ahhh, but what if the reason there are more violations on the street is because it is a route the traffic police use going to and from their base so it is monitored at a level disproportionate to any other street?

Lee H

Hi

How open can this subject be, who has the right answers.

I read all these comments and yet i still dont know who is right, maybe noone can be right about exact figures

Regarding orig post - If people are comfortable in their job, they wont feel the need to get certs unless something pushes them to do so.

If on the other hand if someone wanted better employment, he/she might feel certs are the way to do it.

Thats as black and white as i see it

To question statistics, i dont take any notice. Did you know that 9 out of 10 stats are made up on the spot. lol

Lee H

Plantwiz

The point is....Don't simply throw out a % when you've not done any research.

It's bad enough when official surveys are altered to reflect a desired result (or achieve the best answer for the person funding the effort), people should not just spout off % like they know it as fact when they have nothing to back it up except personal opinion.

If it's your opinion or a statement based on your own personal experience then state that for goodness-sake. Don't pull it out of the air.