It's amazing to me how many intelligent people here pound their fist standing behind meaningless statistics using frequency as the "proof" or "evidence" when they are clueless as to how to properly interpret reality.
There is a distinction between frequency and rate as it relates to a population (or (classification within a sample group) (if that statement didn't make sense to you, stay out of arguments where you cite statistics).
A sample of exactly what I'm saying ....
2 people in Townsville, USA were attacked by a pit bull.
4 people, in that same town were attacked by a shepherd.
There are 10 pit bulls and 1000 shepherds living in Townville.
Which breed of dog represents a higher risk (genetic disposition) toward attacking people.
These threads are merry-go-rounds.
|