this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
371 points (95.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
824 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SelfHigh5@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The large percent of traffic accidents that take place within 5 miles of home. Most people only cover a fairly small radius on a day to day basis so it makes sense if there is an accident, it’s close to home and not 80 miles away… just on average of how far how often you drive. Makes it seem like neighbourhoods are more dangerous than highways or something.

[–] ferrousfair@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Another factor is that people feel more comfortable driving their local roads and get used to usual traffic patterns, which could mean that they're not as alert if something's different.

Eg you're almost home, in your neighborhood, and there's a stop sign that almost never has anyone else there, so you might not look too much just roll through, the one time someone's actually there.

[–] President_Pyrus@feddit.dk 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only accident I have ever been in was 1300 kilometers from home...

[–] SelfHigh5@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Well I can’t recall the statistical percentage often cited but I’m sure it wasn’t 100% so it’s ok for it not to have been true for you. Sorry about your far from home accident.

[–] ScorpionFrog@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] nailbar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago
[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

This is such a good example for how statistics are often misinterpreted without any fault of the statistics itself.

It reminds me of when they looked at fighter jets to decide which parts to reinforce. So they examined which parts had the most bullet holes and came up with this statistic:

If some of you don't knew about this yet, I let you decide why this effect is called "survivorship bias". :D

There needs to be more education about how statistics need to be looked at in the correct context.

[–] 6mementomori@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

that is actually an interesting way to think about it