View Single Post
Old 12-17-2013, 05:26 PM   #20 (permalink)
DEpointfive0
Premium Member Bitches
 
DEpointfive0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 14,824
Drives: a lot
Rep Power: 17151
DEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond reputeDEpointfive0 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O_Doc View Post
I don't think what you cite as skewing the results actually do that. It looks like the authors were trying to allow for reasonable bases for comparison. They had a minimum required population size and used a standard time period for that population. What they seem do have done actually makes the results easier to use.

I have no idea how you calculated 2000 million. What I will suggest is the reason they don't include cars with such low sales figures is, in part, because the likelihood of drawing conclusions from rare events (e.g. fatal accidents) is impossible with relatively small (1000 cars) sample sizes.

If you are expressing frustration about the way statistics are used against people when you remarked about "how numbers lie" I am with you. People in politics, in the media, people selling stuff, or people in legal circles often misuse or abuse statistics to knowingly make false (or unsupported claims), or to bait the untrained into drawing those conclusions on their own. Strictly speaking, however, I do strongly disagree with the notion that statistics themselves (done properly) lie - people, however, lie with statistics. Not exactly the same thing.

Back on topic, I think there is some usefulness to the study as long as we don't draw inappropriate conclusions from the data.
H20, I like you, I'm buying you a beer

I meant 2000 per million, I reworded that sentence and the "per" didn't copy.

I still think the article is a bit skewed because how did they equate 100k 350Zs when there weren't that many sold from 2005-2008? And did they mean the 2005-2008, or registered from 2006-2009? Also, if it's cars registered, did they get a running total? Or did it just have to hit 100,000 on the road total ONCE?


And yes, statistics can be a fantastic tool, but it's usually used to make facts that don't answer the correct question (Last week's example pissed me off big time; it said over 70% of heart attack victims drink soda... I wanted to strangle someone... It's such a vague "fact"... It went on to say that they drink soda AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH... Well in the real world, i bet that statistically 70% of the population has one soda a month, so that by itself voids out their BULLSHÍT "statistic")
__________________
Do YOU want to know what/where I got my username from?
( Click to show/hide )
DEpointfive0 is offline   Reply With Quote