Creative Statistics


© Frank Monaldo

One convenient method for polemical distortion is to carefully select two points on a noisy or complex curve of some social indicator and draw misleading inferences. It is a technique that is not limited to any particular political orthodoxy. A few examples will illustrate.

Example 1

The rate of drug use by teenagers had been declining steadily from 1979 to 1992. In the words of the 1995 Survey on Drug Abuse, "In 1992, the rate of past month use among youth aged 12-17 reached a low of 5.3 percent, the result of a decline from 16.3 percent in 1979. By 1994, the rate had climbed back to 8.2 percent, and in 1995 it increased again to 10.9 percent.' See the figure below.

 


At the time of the report, there was a debate as to whether the Clinton Administration could be properly blamed for the increase. Leave aside the issue of responsibility. What is curious here is the response of the then presidential advisor, George Stephanopoulos. He pointed out in 1996 that teenage drug use during the Clinton Administration was now lower than it was at a comparable time in the Reagan Administration. This was an absolutely true statement, but misleading. During the Reagan and Bush Administrations, teenage drug use was declining from a high, whereas during the Clinton Administration drug use was increasing from a low. The point here is not to draw conclusions about different drug policies, but to illustrate the technique of careful, though deliberately misleading, selection of data points.

Example 2

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) is a Left-leaning advocacy group masquerading as a dispassionate truth squad out to debunk errors in reporting. The notion that the "United States is number one" rankles FAIR to the marrow of its bones so it felt an uncontrollable need to debunk John Stossel's ABC television report of the same name. When Stossel reported increased incomes in the United States, FAIR argued that median rather than mean income was a better measure. FAIR then correctly claimed that inflation adjusted median income had reduced from 1989 to 1997.

Why did they pick 1989 and 1997 as comparison points? In 1989, inflation-adjusted median income had reached its 1980's economic boom peak. A recession followed in the early 1990s. Since that low point, the economy has rebounded. Here are numbers for household median income pulled from the Census Bureau.

YearMedian Household Income
1969$33,072
1979$34,666
     

Go To Page: 1 2 3


The copyright of the article Creative Statistics in Conservative Politics is owned by . Permission to republish Creative Statistics in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo


Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: View all related messages

21.   Oct 27, 1999 1:46 PM
whenever it's pointed out that the freedom of tramps to eat at the Ritz isn't worth much either.

I'm not sure what to say to this. I sense it's one of those socialist things, again, and we'r ...


-- posted by JoelG


20.   Oct 27, 1999 12:22 PM
Mill, Joel is even worse than you present.

First, the technical term for his usage is
"glittering generality", a propaganda methodology.
There's a link to the propaganda site at my
Skepticism li ...


-- posted by Prometheus


19.   Oct 27, 1999 12:03 PM
the point is that you try to use the political/social sense of "freedom" and then retreat to the mechanical sense whenever it's pointed out that the freedom of tramps to eat at the Ritz isn't worth mu ...

-- posted by JS_Mill


18.   Oct 27, 1999 10:15 AM
Old cliche: "My freedom ends where your nose begins."

To call an ability to hit you in the nose "freedom" because I'm not currently in handcuffs is correct in a mechanical sense. However, we have n ...


-- posted by JoelG


17.   Oct 27, 1999 9:07 AM
As my semantics professor said in college, "Meaning is in people, not in words." You obviously know what I mean, even if you quibble with my word usage.

Sadly, Oxford's budget did not run t ...


-- posted by JS_Mill





For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Frank Monaldo's Conservative Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.