Including gentle lessons in statistics to start a blog, feels like a really good idea. Having followed your work for several years and used your findings in debates with friends who accept some of the false or imperfect statistics you examine, I have come to the view that there are people who rather than disagreeing with you, are unable to follow your arguments because they don't understand statistical analysis. These are by no means uneducated people. It's as though they have some form of 'innumeracy' as others have a 'tin ear' or are dyslexic when it comes to spelling and syntax. It's no good asking you to go slower as that's not the problem. You seem to convey even complex concepts in a way that's neither condescending not, it seems to me, tricky to follow. However I suspect that being 'statistically illiterate' may for some be as shaming as being unable to read. It's taken me a while to grasp that this kind of misunderstanding of CD-19 statistics is occurring. Being unable to understand your figures has been the last thing I've expected of people I've taken for granted as being smart.
Statistics should be introduced at secondary school. There are many who find statistics hard to grasp and wouldn't be confident commenting on complex analyses. I'm not sure being "statistically illiterate" is on the same (shaming) level as the inability to read. The Article today is likely university level so inaccessible for many.
Including gentle lessons in statistics to start a blog, feels like a really good idea. Having followed your work for several years and used your findings in debates with friends who accept some of the false or imperfect statistics you examine, I have come to the view that there are people who rather than disagreeing with you, are unable to follow your arguments because they don't understand statistical analysis. These are by no means uneducated people. It's as though they have some form of 'innumeracy' as others have a 'tin ear' or are dyslexic when it comes to spelling and syntax. It's no good asking you to go slower as that's not the problem. You seem to convey even complex concepts in a way that's neither condescending not, it seems to me, tricky to follow. However I suspect that being 'statistically illiterate' may for some be as shaming as being unable to read. It's taken me a while to grasp that this kind of misunderstanding of CD-19 statistics is occurring. Being unable to understand your figures has been the last thing I've expected of people I've taken for granted as being smart.
Statistics should be introduced at secondary school. There are many who find statistics hard to grasp and wouldn't be confident commenting on complex analyses. I'm not sure being "statistically illiterate" is on the same (shaming) level as the inability to read. The Article today is likely university level so inaccessible for many.
... which helps explain the challenge of debating the realities of the last 4 years.