(most) People are wrong about (most) things

Malc · **Posted:** Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:47

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97821.html

Quote:

A new survey for the Royal Statistical Society and King's College London shows public opinion is repeatedly off the mark on issues including crime, benefit fraud and immigration.

The research, carried out by Ipsos Mori from a phone survey of 1,015 people aged 16 to 75, lists ten misconceptions held by the British public. Among the biggest misconceptions are:

- Benefit fraud: the public think that £24 of every £100 of benefits is fraudulently claimed. Official estimates are that just 70 pence in every £100 is fraudulent - so the public conception is out by a factor of 34...

There is more at the link.

Malc

Bamba · **Joined:** 25th Jul, 2010 **Posts:** 11128

Congratulations to the Daily Mail and it's ilk; your sustained campaign of misinformation is working out a treat.

Bobbyaro · **Joined:** 18th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 11927

Where the hell would anyone get the figure twenty four percent? I wouldn't have a clue.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

The one that amused me was that 15% of under 16 girls get pregnant

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

Trooper wrote:

The one that amused me was that 15% of under 16 girls get pregnant

Exactly. I think this is also about the lack of basic knowledge in statistics and probability. How can anyone think that 15% of under 16 girls get pregnant???

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16787

I think most people answering that would assume that it meant the % of girls who get pregnant before they are 16. I kind of suspect from reading the results that this was a multiple choice survey designed to elicit a particular result.

I don't disagree that a lot of people have a world view that is all out of whack with reality but this just seems like even more bullshit for the pile.

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:23

markg wrote:

I think most people answering that would assume that it meant the % of girls who get pregnant before they are 16.

Well, yeah. What else would it mean?

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16787

I dunno % of girls under 16 who are pregnant I guess? I was just wondering why people were all disbelieving about how anyone could think that. Depending on where you live it could easily be a reasonable off the cuff guess.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38979

It explicitly says 'get pregnant' and not 'become parents'. There's a world of difference between those two, especially in underage girls

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:41

DavPaz wrote:

It explicitly says 'get pregnant' and not 'become parents'. There's a world of difference between those two, especially in underage girls

Interestingly, class is a major factor when it comes to a teenage girl carrying to term. I think it is something to do with greater availability of support for things liek abortions opr something. I'll try and recall the study.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16787

Huh, I thought it was so they could get free houses etc.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:54

markg wrote:

Huh, I thought it was so they could get free houses etc.

No, that's the swans.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

markg wrote:

I dunno % of girls under 16 who are pregnant I guess? I was just wondering why people were all disbelieving about how anyone could think that. Depending on where you live it could easily be a reasonable off the cuff guess.

Really?

Take a typical school year of 200 15yr olds, half of those being girls. 15 of them getting pregnant? That's 3 out of every class. Every single year.

MaliA · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:16

Trooper wrote:

markg wrote:

I dunno % of girls under 16 who are pregnant I guess? I was just wondering why people were all disbelieving about how anyone could think that. Depending on where you live it could easily be a reasonable off the cuff guess.

Really?

Take a typical school year of 200 15yr olds, half of those being girls. 15 of them getting pregnant? That's 3 out of every class. Every single year.

<steps up>

It's a dirty job, and a thankless task, but someone has to do it.

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16787

Trooper wrote:

markg wrote:

I dunno % of girls under 16 who are pregnant I guess? I was just wondering why people were all disbelieving about how anyone could think that. Depending on where you live it could easily be a reasonable off the cuff guess.

Really?

Take a typical school year of 200 15yr olds, half of those being girls. 15 of them getting pregnant? That's 3 out of every class. Every single year.

Oh yeah, but my point, that I didn't really make very well, was really about how the questionnaire was constructed. If it's multiple choice then I think that the conclusions might be a bit misleading. If the choice was between 0.6% and 15% and perhaps some other, higher figures then I think the results might be different than if you asked people to simply guess the percentage. I don't know if this was the case but looking at the results it does make me wonder.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

markg wrote:

Trooper wrote:

markg wrote:

I dunno % of girls under 16 who are pregnant I guess? I was just wondering why people were all disbelieving about how anyone could think that. Depending on where you live it could easily be a reasonable off the cuff guess.

Really?

Take a typical school year of 200 15yr olds, half of those being girls. 15 of them getting pregnant? That's 3 out of every class. Every single year.

Oh yeah, but my point, that I didn't really make very well, was really about how the questionnaire was constructed. If it's multiple choice then I think that the conclusions might be a bit misleading. If the choice was between 0.6% and 15% and perhaps some other, higher figures then I think the results might be different than if you asked people to simply guess the percentage. I don't know if this was the case but looking at the results it does make me wonder.

Fair point. I would be surprised if the questions were anything other than "give me a number", rather than multiple choice, but we don't know for sure.

Maybe Grim... does, this is his sort of shit, isn't it?

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:37

We didn't do it, so I don't know how it was constructed.

But question bias is a tricky bugger to get around.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

Grim... wrote:

But question bias is a tricky bugger to get around.

Are you saying that question bias is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

Grim... · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:46

Trooper wrote:

Grim... wrote:

But question bias is a tricky bugger to get around.

Are you saying that question bias is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

You want to avoid it as much as you can, is what I'm saying.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:54

markg wrote:

I don't know if this was the case but looking at the results it does make me wonder.

It's also worth considering if the respondents had ever thought about the question before being asked or not. If I asked you for the percentage of purple socks in my sock drawer, your response might be vastly different if you had had some experience of my sock drawer than if I put you on the spot and asked for answer despite you not even knowing that I had a drawer.

Still, regardless of methodology, it is a rather depressing survey.

Sir Taxalot · **Joined:** 5th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 5103

Ooh, is that a trick question?

I'm guessing 0% purple sockage.

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

Grim... wrote:

Trooper wrote:

Grim... wrote:

But question bias is a tricky bugger to get around.

Are you saying that question bias is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

You want to avoid it as much as you can, is what I'm saying.

I think my "joke" was a tad too subtle...

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

Kern wrote:

markg wrote:

I don't know if this was the case but looking at the results it does make me wonder.

It's also worth considering if the respondents had ever thought about the question before being asked or not. If I asked you for the percentage of purple socks in my sock drawer, your response might be vastly different if you had had some experience of my sock drawer than if I put you on the spot and asked for answer despite you not even knowing that I had a drawer.

Still, regardless of methodology, it is a rather depressing survey.

0.2%

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Trooper wrote:

Grim... wrote:

Trooper wrote:

Grim... wrote:

But question bias is a tricky bugger to get around.

Are you saying that question bias is a bad thing and shouldn't be allowed?

You want to avoid it as much as you can, is what I'm saying.

I think my "joke" was a tad too subtle...

I got it, and LOLed

Trooper · **Joined:** 4th Mar, 2010 **Posts:** 22432

Trooper wrote:

Kern wrote:

markg wrote:

I don't know if this was the case but looking at the results it does make me wonder.

It's also worth considering if the respondents had ever thought about the question before being asked or not. If I asked you for the percentage of purple socks in my sock drawer, your response might be vastly different if you had had some experience of my sock drawer than if I put you on the spot and asked for answer despite you not even knowing that I had a drawer.

Still, regardless of methodology, it is a rather depressing survey.

0.2%

Wait! No!

5% Definitely 5%.

Be Excellent To Each Other

(most) People are wrong about (most) things

Who is online