We run into similar challenges of scale and experience in humanitarian/aid work. It's easy to be overwhelmed by the numbers of suffering people when the primary dimension of representing them is something like "food consumption." Stats are vital for the logistics of meeting acute needs, but they erase (abstract out) the rich dynamics of human life.<p>You might think photos would help, but the endless stream of images of "starving people" ends up being cumulative, compounding the matter.<p>Projects that systematically dig into the lived experience of beneficiaries and treat them as complex social beings start to bridge that gap. They not only dignify the people involved (providers and beneficiaries both), but also often discover systemic issues that "the numbers" would never reveal.<p>I wonder what conversations the author had with people who lived there (genuine question, not a criticism).
What's interesting is when there's a big discrepancy between what the numbers say, and what the place feels like. Stats, like impressions, are not all made the same way.<p>When I was in Switzerland I always thought there was something sluggish about the economy, the pace that things went at, the lunch breaks, but the stats say it's one of the most prosperous places in the world.<p>With the Scandies I wonder how on earth the happiest country in the world could possibly be Denmark. Maybe they hide their feelings, but I found a lot of other places have people who seem happier.<p>Getting those discrepancies is vital, btw. You need the impressions to make you curious about the stats, and vice versa.
Really excellent video on how headline statistics, such as "median household income" are often misleading and hide the real story: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXI_ADnp22c" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXI_ADnp22c</a><p>Edit: these stats are often used to push a political agenda, citing "lack of growth for the middle class," but when you dig into the stats, the story is often the opposite of that claimed by the politician, etc.
I want statistics on the outcomes for people who ignore statistics, people who take statistics much less seriously than their gut, people who take gut much less seriously than their statistics, and people who ignore their gut.<p>My gut feeling is that the outcomes for people who use their gut over statistics are significantly better. And if you showed me statistics that they aren't, I'd trust my gut on it.
If you find this article interesting look into "The Influential Mind" by Tali Sharot. It was on FT's shortlist for Best of 2017.<p>The parallel is how the brain is wired, and how that effects perception / belief.<p><a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627792653" rel="nofollow">https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781627792653</a>
I've had a chance to see stats in an ad sales pitch by a media conglomerate. Most of the stats I see are the chunks of data which are sliced to sound impressive (uplevel correlation to imply causation)
Ex:- Within the region filter X, among the millennials, the sales of SUV's increased by 10% is worded as Youth buys more SUV's if you buy our ad slots with a footnote for filters<p>Point being, governments create misleading stats, companies create misleading stats, makes me agree even more with the author!
PS:- Misleading !=(also, =!) incorrect
To be a statistician is to ignore experience. I once interviewed someone who was a statistics major. When I asked him a performance optimization question, the first thing he told me is that he'd write a program to compute the standard deviation of running time. He could've solved it in two minutes just by running the thing. No hire.