I recently had a discussion about statistics in my human disease class, and included are some of my thoughts spawning therefrom.
Concerning statistics, it is interesting (perhaps important) to question how we truly know something. If we see, feel, taste, smell, or touch something, we assume it is real, and we assume it is what it seems. However, the reality is that there are sensations, and there are perceptions. A group of people participated in an experiment where they watched a video, and were given a complex task. I can't remember the task, but I think it involved counting something in the background. The video included people walking into view of the camera, walking toward the camera, doing something like waving, then leaving. One of the people wore a giant gorilla outfit, but participants could not recall that one of the individuals in the video was wearing a gorilla outfit. They were carefully analyzing the video, and failed to see the most glaringly obvious thing. They clearly should have sensed the gorilla (activation of light receptors in the eye and transmission of that data to the brain). However, their perception was significantly lacking!
Here's a related video that gets the idea across.
The truth is that our perceptions are insufficient to make generalized claims about truth, or anything that approaches a claim about truth. I played a videogame one time where you made bets on cockfights, and found myself losing a lot. I went online to see if anyone had the solution for which birds should win the cockfights. Several individuals had posted complex schemes for how the computer decided which bird would win. I decided that I would have fun putting them to the test, so I gathered data on the cockfights and discovered that the game was random chance. Not only was it clear that the complex schemes were wrong, it was glaringly obvious that the game was purely chance. And yet, by just using judgement without statistics, these gamers were way, way off on what the truth of the matter was.
Consider the following scene from the movie Momento, as well.
I bring these examples up to point out how amazingly weak our ability to discern truth is. Statistics do not claim to be absolute. They claim to suggest probabilities. The cockfight game could have followed one of the complex schemes that someone suggested. It was just highly, highly unlikely. So unlikely that, if my goal were to discern the code behind the game, I would need to reject the complex schemes. Gambling is a means of ignoring statistics in favor of hope.
So, in an effort to make generalizable statements about what is true, we are able to use probabilities. They come with assumptions and they come with the accepted fact that the conclusions we draw from them are sometimes wrong. But they also come with the convenience of accurately describing the probability that our reality is a certain way based on past experience.
Now, as stated by other classmates, statistics can be confusing. People don't understand probabilities unless they undergo rigorous training. Even a doctor might say, "You've got 6 months to live." He or she is making a prediction based on statistics, but ignoring the fact that statistics are probabilities. What are the odds that they have 6 months to live? What is the range? What's the standard deviation? What factors might alter this patient's chances? Besides one classmate's excellent point that statistics are about groups, not individuals, this estimate, at its best, is really just a guess. Not that guessing is flat out bad. Check out this story about Fermi guessing the strength of the first atomic bomb.
To further complicate matters, different people, and different cultures, deal with medical information differently. Even if someone has a 100% chance of having cancer, they may prefer not to know. However, and I hope this point rings home to anyone planning to go into a helping profession, if the patient wants to understand their situation, it is our duty to help them understand the reality. They aren't slaves to the system, and the system shouldn't decide what they're allowed to understand!
Concerning statistics, it is interesting (perhaps important) to question how we truly know something. If we see, feel, taste, smell, or touch something, we assume it is real, and we assume it is what it seems. However, the reality is that there are sensations, and there are perceptions. A group of people participated in an experiment where they watched a video, and were given a complex task. I can't remember the task, but I think it involved counting something in the background. The video included people walking into view of the camera, walking toward the camera, doing something like waving, then leaving. One of the people wore a giant gorilla outfit, but participants could not recall that one of the individuals in the video was wearing a gorilla outfit. They were carefully analyzing the video, and failed to see the most glaringly obvious thing. They clearly should have sensed the gorilla (activation of light receptors in the eye and transmission of that data to the brain). However, their perception was significantly lacking!
Here's a related video that gets the idea across.
The truth is that our perceptions are insufficient to make generalized claims about truth, or anything that approaches a claim about truth. I played a videogame one time where you made bets on cockfights, and found myself losing a lot. I went online to see if anyone had the solution for which birds should win the cockfights. Several individuals had posted complex schemes for how the computer decided which bird would win. I decided that I would have fun putting them to the test, so I gathered data on the cockfights and discovered that the game was random chance. Not only was it clear that the complex schemes were wrong, it was glaringly obvious that the game was purely chance. And yet, by just using judgement without statistics, these gamers were way, way off on what the truth of the matter was.
Consider the following scene from the movie Momento, as well.
Leonard Shelby: Memory's unreliable.
Teddy: Oh, please.
Leonard Shelby: No, no, no, no really. Memory's not perfect, it's not even that good. Ask the police. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. The cops don't catch a killer by sitting around remembering stuff. They collect facts.
Teddy: That's not what I'm...
Leonard Shelby: They make notes and they draw conclusions. Facts, not memories. That's how you investigate. I know, it's what I used to do. Look, memory can change the shape of a room, it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record. And they're irrelevant if you have the facts.
I bring these examples up to point out how amazingly weak our ability to discern truth is. Statistics do not claim to be absolute. They claim to suggest probabilities. The cockfight game could have followed one of the complex schemes that someone suggested. It was just highly, highly unlikely. So unlikely that, if my goal were to discern the code behind the game, I would need to reject the complex schemes. Gambling is a means of ignoring statistics in favor of hope.
So, in an effort to make generalizable statements about what is true, we are able to use probabilities. They come with assumptions and they come with the accepted fact that the conclusions we draw from them are sometimes wrong. But they also come with the convenience of accurately describing the probability that our reality is a certain way based on past experience.
Now, as stated by other classmates, statistics can be confusing. People don't understand probabilities unless they undergo rigorous training. Even a doctor might say, "You've got 6 months to live." He or she is making a prediction based on statistics, but ignoring the fact that statistics are probabilities. What are the odds that they have 6 months to live? What is the range? What's the standard deviation? What factors might alter this patient's chances? Besides one classmate's excellent point that statistics are about groups, not individuals, this estimate, at its best, is really just a guess. Not that guessing is flat out bad. Check out this story about Fermi guessing the strength of the first atomic bomb.
To further complicate matters, different people, and different cultures, deal with medical information differently. Even if someone has a 100% chance of having cancer, they may prefer not to know. However, and I hope this point rings home to anyone planning to go into a helping profession, if the patient wants to understand their situation, it is our duty to help them understand the reality. They aren't slaves to the system, and the system shouldn't decide what they're allowed to understand!
No comments:
Post a Comment