6135
6136

VerifiedWhat Math We Should Teach (i.redd.it)

MrWeinerSMBC が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Kazang 206ポイント207ポイント  (43子コメント)

A rather striking example of how misleading statistics can be is the introduction of metal helmets to british troops in WW1. After the introduction of helmets the number of head wounds went up, leading to many of the officers and commanders to think that the helmets were a bad idea and so ordered there men not to wear the helmets. But of course the reason for the increase in head wounds is because the helmets prevented fatalities that were reduced to wounds. Fortunately this was realised by all eventually and helmets became essential equipment.

[–]goomyman 134ポイント135ポイント  (20子コメント)

my favorite in WW1/WW2 was only adding armor to planes that returned from battle where there were not bullet holes, places with bullet holes were less vital spots.

Places without bullet holes when hit were the places the planes couldn't fly back from.

[–]chizdfw 37ポイント38ポイント  (6子コメント)

That's a really hard way to collect your data.

[–]zaffle 45ポイント46ポイント  (3子コメント)

Tactics and safety are written with the blood of those who came before.

[–]Meihem76 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everytime you see a safety sign and think "What sort of fucktard needs to be told that?" remember there was someone that needed to be told and wasn't.

[–]recycleyourkids 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

MRW I play a new strategy game

[–]Kal1699 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Most metal as fuck safety statement.

[–]MikeTaylorPhoto 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

And some of the worst sentence structures I've ever read.

[–]Do_Whatever_You_Like 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ya One would think that they could simply study wreckage from the planes that had crashed.

[–]tim466 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

In your first sentence you say they first only added armor to the places where there were no bullet holes. but isn't that the right conclusion to draw as the planes that were hit at those places didn't return?

[–]Reutan 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not clear, but that was they were trying to emphasize.

[–]MeepTMW 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're correct. Above must have had a bad day with proper syntax; they mean what you mean.

[–]shoyurx 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Holy shit, that's really smart.

[–]GomuGomuNoKush 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2013/05/23/survivorship-bias/

[–]dorekk 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's kind of the point...?

[–]qdatk 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think that was a "here's more on this topic" link rather than a "this is where you're wrong" link.

[–]Xais56 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah, nobody's actually used the term "survivorship bias" until that link.

[–]arkiula 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That was an interesting link. Thanks!

[–]pablotweek 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Wald

[–]ShutUpTodd 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What?

[–]Snapchato 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't understand what you're trying to say

[–]eden_of_chaos 15ポイント16ポイント  (5子コメント)

This is how most people think, sadly. They don't see the full picture, only the small bit out of context.

[–]chaoticcranium 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

Particularly if they are suffering a head wound.

[–]maurti 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thats so true indeed lol

[–]EconHelpDead 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why can't everyone be as enlightened as us?

[–]eden_of_chaos 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because the education system in the US is complete garbage, and the news isn't about informing the people, it's about furthering their own agendas. Because of this, people would rather be told what is happening,getting part of it, instead of finding out for themselves and getting the full story. Of course, there will always be people who try to take something out of context and twist it to sound how they want it to, but that's where people have to make the effort to find out for themselves and not believe EVERYTHING someone says.

Remember when the History channel was about HISTORY? Now it's about reality shows of people cutting down trees and pawn shops. You used to be able to learn more important stuff about history from sitting down and watching the History channel for 2 hours a day for a month, than you would in an entire year of school. You are given a massive textbook that you only go through a quarter of the entire time.

[–]Hayes4prez 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is true that the History Channel has gone downhill... but it was never a reliable source for accurate history. It was full of "feel good history" that people enjoyed watching.

[–]monstrinhotron 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

i bet they had a good laugh over that one. Sitting on a pile of corpses, just laughing and laughing.

[–]Squid_In_Exile 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's WW1 in a nutshell, really.

[–]monstrinhotron 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Blackadder Goes Forth is a documentary.

[–]Saxifrage_Russell 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And Hardcore History is a character drama.

[–]satanichamsters 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

/r/badhistory. This is ironic that people are upvoting this in a thread about misinformation - because this never happened.

Edit: Heres a snopes message thread about it. This story is a myth and there is no evidence to support it.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=15644

[–]BadgerMcLovin 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

In a similar vein, there was a mathematician in WW2 who was tasked with identifying the best way to distribute armour on planes to give the most protection per kilogramme. The conventional wisdom was to put more where there were more bullet holes on returning planes but he realised that these were the places where planes got shot and made it back. The places where you don't see bullet holes are where the ones that were shot down had been hit, so fewer returning planes had holes there. What was needed, counter intuitively, was armour where the holes weren't

[–]SikorskyUH60 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seems a lot easier (and probably more efficient) to just have an engineer consider exactly what the points of failure would be. Armor the engine, the primary steering mechanics, and the pilot.

[–]E4tabrizi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have heard about not cooking in your helmets because it weakens the metal. But to not wear a helmet?! just think about it. IN what possible situation could wearing a helmet hurt your. WW1 and 2 helmets were just for debri. Shrapnel and bullets would go right through. Its not impossible to be deflected but highly unlikely. In a time of war when metals and minerals are so limited why would they waste so much metal on helmets if they could make guns and ammo out of it. In short if there wasn't a reason they wouldn't do it. They definitely wouldn't have done it again, and again, and again. But you have people saying everything you say isn't fact checked and false and even more I'm not exactly sure you can interpret a whole sentence.

[–]SpyForHilary 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

leading to many of the officers and commanders to think that the helmets were a bad idea and so ordered there men not to wear the helmets.

Sorry im 99% sure this never happened. I've studied WW1 a fair bit and have never heard this. Got a source?

[–]virex1202 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is no source. It definitely didn't happen.

[–]E4tabrizi 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have heard about not cooking in your helmets because it weakens the metal. But to not wear a helmet?! just think about it. IN what possible situation could wearing a helmet hurt your. WW1 and 2 helmets were just for debri. Shrapnel and bullets would go right through. Its not impossible to be deflected but highly unlikely. In a time of war when metals and minerals are so limited why would they waste so much metal on helmets if they could make guns and ammo out of it. In short if there wasn't a reason they wouldn't do it. They definitely wouldn't have done it again, and again, and again. But you have people saying everything you say isn't fact checked and false and even more I'm not exactly sure you can interpret a whole sentence.

Not ment to be to you SPy

[–]spotted_dick 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you have a source for this? I'm a bit skeptical.

[–]wotindaactyall 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

that's bad statistics, not statistics being misleading. The data should have included deaths from head wounds clearly

[–]richard_sympson 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Aaaggghhhh no, this isn't a case of statistics being misleading, and rarely any other given example is actually a problem with statistics. The problem lies with idiots trying to use statistical tools as a black box: in goes the numbers and out comes the answer, philosophy and introspection be damned. It's infuriating, and disastrous to general education in statistics. It's really such a beautiful and internally mature subject, and I hate trying to crawl through fuckery from clowns who like to use the words of the field without knowing what they mean.

[–]Kazang 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

People were mislead by a statistic? How is that not statistics being misleading?

[–]Hipstershy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Same concept with red light cameras. Collisions may briefly go up when one is installed at an intersection, but fatalities within and around it go way down. Getting rear ended because someone was following too close behind you when you started braking is way better than getting t-boned by someone running the light. One is an inconvenience and probably ruins your day, the other will end or ruin your life.