This wouldn’t be bad for the Happy Thoughts thread, since it is a Happy Thought if substantially correct (I’m not sure it is, but probably substantially is). But surely it is not 100% correct.
1 Like
The percentage is at least an order of magnitude too low, IMO.
Strictly speaking it’s not an innumeracy; it’s just awkward wording.
1 Like
A friend had a pit boxer mix that was the sweetest dog ever. Yeah 100% is much too low.
1 Like
:shake:
6 votes?
How many would be girls? That may affect the total number of votes.
1 Like
nm
Assume the earth is a point…
lol… in addition to ignoring the radius of the earth and being wildly not to scale, it ignores the fact that while you do have to travel slightly further at a higher altitude, the air is thinner and planes typically have a faster ground speed the higher they are.
BTW, by my calculations, if you are going a quarter of the way around the earth, which is about what the image seems to show, using 3963.1 miles as the radius for earth, the trip would be 8 miles further at 33,000 feet than 5,500 ft. 
(Yes, I know that’s not the point… I just can’t not run the calc.)
6,225 miles at earth’s surface
6,227 miles at 5,500 ft
6,235 miles at 33,000 ft
That extra 8 miles is easily covered by the higher speed.
1 Like
But the extra time!!!
If I hadn’t put that in the Innumeracy Thread, I would have put this new on in the Happy Thoughts thread.
I’m curious though, since two people thought the “100% more likely” was right (or understated). Are these two claims equivalent, and what do they mean if (purely as a hypothetical that could easily be way off in percentage terms) the probability of being bitten by a pit bull is 0.000001.
(I would have thought that the second means probability of fall in love with one is at least 0.0001, which I think would be understated, but that the first means the probability is at least 1.000001, which IMO is at least a little overstated.)
Former neighbors (more than 10 years ago) had a pit bull, which did not scare me at all, but did not seem like an especially friendly dog.
The second picture is also a much happier photo, IMO.
No. They are not.
Mathematically.
Feelingatically? We know the answer to that.
Depending on the exposure level, of course. Right now, and for the next four hours or so, I have a 0% P(getting bit by a pitbull).
Need P(getting bit by a pitbull | pitbull in sight with no barrier)
From a seemingly dog-unfriendly site:
A collection of national and medical study-specific nonfatal and fatal dog bite injury-related statistics. Notably, each year, an American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog.
(From the CDC)
Note that in most studies, the pitbull is the plurality
1 Like
Saw this from Derek Muller and thought of a lot of people I know IRL and it made me a little sad. I very often argue the other side of whatever most of the other people are arguing to try to challenge them to think more critically. Unfortunately, it rarely works.
1 Like
I’m not so sure about the rash example. It didn’t mention how many people saw no change in the rash (which often happens with topical creams).
If there were 1000 in each group, the skin cream improved 223, saw no change for 702 and worsened 75 and the placebo improved 107, saw no change for 872 and worsened 21, I would say the cream had some effectiveness (while giving a small group an allergic reaction). If the only two options were improved or worsened it would make sense but they never mentioned that.
The chart he’s holding only gives the categories of “rash improved” and “rash worsened”. There isn’t a choice for no change, so no reason to consider it for this numeracy experiment.
The exposure issue really sours the video for me though I agree it was done to ask the public and probably 6 numbers was a survey with an obvious answer.
1 Like