19th Aug '16 1:35:34 PM

**Ferot_Dreadnaught** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 74 (click to see context) from:**

* The Creator/FoxNewsChannel's fondness for flashy graphics to engage the viewer's attention occasionally lends itself to a few mistakes. Such as [[http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/112009/fox_news_math_fail.jpg a pie chart where the total breakdowns add up to 193%]], or [[http://www.mathfail.com/scientists-poll.jpg this poll with a breakdown that adds up to 120%]]. Either with the pressure of the rush to get on-screen information ready by showtime, those responsible have little time to double-check their work; or [[TheyJustDidntCare they care more about making a quick impression on the viewer than ensuring accurate information]].[[note]]If the people polled can pick more than one option, poll results can easily add up to more than 100%. The first poll might be such a case, but a pie chart is a poor choice for showing that kind of data. The second poll suggests someone was stupid, whether the people who made the graphic, the people who calculated the numbers, or the people who voted for more than one mutually exclusive option.[[/note]]

**to:**

* The Creator/FoxNewsChannel's fondness for flashy graphics to engage the viewer's attention occasionally lends itself to a few mistakes. Such as [[http://pics.blameitonthevoices.com/112009/fox_news_math_fail.jpg a pie chart where the total breakdowns add up to 193%]], or [[http://www.mathfail.com/scientists-poll.jpg this poll with a breakdown that adds up to 120%]]. Either with the pressure of the rush to get on-screen information ready by showtime, those responsible have little time to double-check their work; or ~~[[TheyJustDidntCare ~~they care more about making a quick impression on the viewer than ensuring accurate ~~information]].~~information.[[note]]If the people polled can pick more than one option, poll results can easily add up to more than 100%. The first poll might be such a case, but a pie chart is a poor choice for showing that kind of data. The second poll suggests someone was stupid, whether the people who made the graphic, the people who calculated the numbers, or the people who voted for more than one mutually exclusive option.[[/note]]

9th Aug '16 2:15:47 PM

**Ripburger** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 130 (click to see context) from:**

* ''[[{{VideoGame/XCOM}} X-COM]]:

**to:**

* ~~''[[{{VideoGame/XCOM}} X-COM]]:~~''{{VideoGame/XCOM}}'':

9th Aug '16 2:15:20 PM

**Ripburger** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 130,131 (click to see context) from:**

* ''VideoGame/XCom'':

** ''{{X-COM}}'''s accuracy reports during combat aren't exactly blatant lies, but they're not exactly accurate, either. What ''X-COM'' does for a hit check is up to two rolls. The first is done against the accuracy check, and if it passes, you automatically get a dead-on shot. The other roll, if the first fails, is the deviation from where you're aiming, which may also end up being nil, resulting in a dead-on shot. So that 75% Accuracy the game reports? More like 77% to hit the target you're aiming at, and up to around 20% to hit someone else, resulting in somewhere around a 86% (on average) chance of someone getting hit by any given shot in a heated battle. Oh, and 100% accuracy reportedly doesn't exist.

** ''{{X-COM}}'''s accuracy reports during combat aren't exactly blatant lies, but they're not exactly accurate, either. What ''X-COM'' does for a hit check is up to two rolls. The first is done against the accuracy check, and if it passes, you automatically get a dead-on shot. The other roll, if the first fails, is the deviation from where you're aiming, which may also end up being nil, resulting in a dead-on shot. So that 75% Accuracy the game reports? More like 77% to hit the target you're aiming at, and up to around 20% to hit someone else, resulting in somewhere around a 86% (on average) chance of someone getting hit by any given shot in a heated battle. Oh, and 100% accuracy reportedly doesn't exist.

**to:**

* ~~''VideoGame/XCom'':~~

''[[{{VideoGame/XCOM}} X-COM]]:

**~~''{{X-COM}}'''s ~~X-COM's accuracy reports during combat aren't exactly blatant lies, but they're not exactly accurate, either. What ''X-COM'' does for a hit check is up to two rolls. The first is done against the accuracy check, and if it passes, you automatically get a dead-on shot. The other roll, if the first fails, is the deviation from where you're aiming, which may also end up being nil, resulting in a dead-on shot. So that 75% Accuracy the game reports? More like 77% to hit the target you're aiming at, and up to around 20% to hit someone else, resulting in somewhere around a 86% (on average) chance of someone getting hit by any given shot in a heated battle. Oh, and 100% accuracy reportedly doesn't exist.

**

30th Jul '16 5:32:12 PM

**nombretomado** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 50,51 (click to see context) from:**

* DaveBarry once joked that he always flew on the airline with the most recent crash, on the assumption that it wouldn't be "due" for another one.[[note]]This could have some validity if you assume that the airline with the most recent crash would be under the most scrutiny and thus have the most reason to tighten up their safety standards, but it's not valid for the reason he (jokingly) gives.[[/note]]

* MarkTwain's ''Life on the Mississippi'' contained the following proof of what you can do with statistics:

* MarkTwain's ''Life on the Mississippi'' contained the following proof of what you can do with statistics:

**to:**

* ~~DaveBarry ~~Creator/DaveBarry once joked that he always flew on the airline with the most recent crash, on the assumption that it wouldn't be "due" for another one.[[note]]This could have some validity if you assume that the airline with the most recent crash would be under the most scrutiny and thus have the most reason to tighten up their safety standards, but it's not valid for the reason he (jokingly) gives.[[/note]]

*~~MarkTwain's ~~Creator/MarkTwain's ''Life on the Mississippi'' contained the following proof of what you can do with statistics:

*

28th Jul '16 11:14:15 PM

**FerrousWhiston** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:**

* '''[[GamblersFallacy The Gambler's fallacy]]''': All probabilities should somehow "even out" while you're playing. For example, if the computer has a hit chance of 50%, and hits, that's okay. However, if it then scores another hit right away, TheComputerIsACheatingBastard. In truth, it just happened to be the way the "dice" fell. As is often stated, "dice have no memory." In situations where extreme good/bad luck streaks are undesirable, the Gambler fallacy can be invoked, chiefly in the form of pseudo-random distribution (or PRD). Under PRD, consistent misses will slowly increase the chance of a hit, and vice versa. Many video games uses this variant of "random" without being noticed, because, "pseudo-random" feels more random than real random.

**to:**

* '''[[GamblersFallacy The Gambler's fallacy]]''': All probabilities should somehow "even out" while you're playing. For example, if the computer has a hit chance of 50%, and hits, that's okay. However, if it then scores another hit right away, TheComputerIsACheatingBastard. In truth, it just happened to be the way the "dice" fell. As is often stated, "dice have no memory." In situations where extreme good/bad luck streaks are undesirable, the Gambler fallacy can be invoked, chiefly in the form of pseudo-random distribution (or PRD). Under PRD, consistent misses will slowly increase the chance of a hit, and vice versa. Many video games uses this variant of "random" without being noticed, because, "pseudo-random" feels more random than real random. Note that there's a nugget of truth in the idea that odds should even out eventually, the operative word here being '''eventually''', this is known as the Central Limit Theorem.

22nd Jul '16 10:47:32 AM

**TheNicestGuy** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

* The {{Series/Mythbusters}} have tackled several things that touched on statistical misconceptions, but probably their most direct assault on this trope was the "[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem Monty Hall problem]]". In a nutshell, this is when you choose one of three doors that may hold a prize. The host (who knows the truth) opens a ''different'' door, showing no prize, and asks you to keep your original choice or choose the remaining door. The hasty assumption is that this second choice is 50-50, and people will tend to stay with their first door, but the reality is that changing your choice has twice the probability of success. The Mythbusters demonstrated that much experimentally, with one hundred trials (fifty each way). When they tested the other half of the myth, the psychology of it, twenty out of twenty of their test subjects stayed with their original choice, many claiming that it was because of the supposed 50% chance.

22nd Jul '16 10:21:18 AM

**TheNicestGuy** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:**

* There is an optional "Event Deck" for the board game ''TabletopGame/SettlersOfCatan''. Using it instead of the dice makes probabilities "even out" somewhat (going through most of the deck before reshuffling guarantees that each number will come up about as often as it "should").

**to:**

* There is an optional "Event Deck" for the board game ~~''TabletopGame/SettlersOfCatan''. ~~''TabletopGame/SettlersOfCatan'', which is just 36 cards: one for each combination of two six-sided dice. Using it instead of the dice makes probabilities "even out" ~~somewhat (going through most of the deck before reshuffling guarantees ~~somewhat, guaranteeing that in each shuffle each number will come up ~~about ~~exactly as often as it ~~"should").~~"should". To a naïve player, it may seem like the change would be insignificant to the gameplay, but consider what the dice actually do in Catan. Each of the board's tiles (except the desert) is assigned a number which is a dice result; whenever the dice hit it, that tile produces resources for the players who have claimed it, regardless of who rolled the dice. So with the cards used instead, every player knows ''exactly'' how much each tile will produce every 36 turns, rather than only a ''probable'' amount. In essence, half of the game's random element has been removed (trading ''which'' numbers will come up for just ''when''), making it much more a game of just [[IfMyCalculationsAreCorrect doing the math]] (and [[BatmanGambit Batman Gambits]]). Of course, if you try to play this way, but your math skills aren't that fast, you can get ParalysisByAnalysis. The deck also opens the game to gaining an advantage by [[FixingTheGame card counting]], making it far easier than it would be with blackjack even if a single deck were used.

11th Jul '16 4:03:48 AM

**Morgenthaler** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Added DiffLines:**

Compare LiesDamnedLiesAndStatistics, when statistics are not just used incorrectly, but are manipulated to get certain results.

5th Jul '16 2:13:10 PM

**TheGunheart** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 137 (click to see context) from:**

* Discussed and defied in one ending of ''VideoGame/StoriesThePathOfDestinies''. After discovering that the [[DismantledMacguffin completed]] [[LostSuperweapon Skyripper]] could potentially [[spoiler: [[TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt destroy the universe]]]] if fired, he discusses the matter further with the sage Calaveras, who narrows it down to a 1 in 128 chance. Reynardo decides this is no big deal; when confronting [[DatingCatwoman Zenobia]], he even explains the 1 in 128 chance in terms of the Gambler's Fallacy (i.e. that the risk will increase the more he fires the weapon, but the first shot should be perfectly safe), which an exasperated Zenobia points out is ''not'' how odds work at all. Needless to say, he fires it, and [[spoiler: it destroys the universe.]]

**to:**

* Discussed and defied in one ending of ~~''VideoGame/StoriesThePathOfDestinies''.~~''VideoGame/StoriesPathOfDestinies''. After discovering that the [[DismantledMacguffin completed]] [[LostSuperweapon Skyripper]] could potentially [[spoiler: [[TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt destroy the universe]]]] if fired, he discusses the matter further with the sage Calaveras, who narrows it down to a 1 in 128 chance. Reynardo decides this is no big deal; when confronting [[DatingCatwoman Zenobia]], he even explains the 1 in 128 chance in terms of the Gambler's Fallacy (i.e. that the risk will increase the more he fires the weapon, but the first shot should be perfectly safe), which an exasperated Zenobia points out is ''not'' how odds work at all. Needless to say, he fires it, and [[spoiler: it destroys the universe.]]

2nd Jul '16 10:40:46 PM

**darkslash** Is there an issue? Send a Message

**Changed line(s) 11 (click to see context) from:**

* '''Naïve Combination of Probabilities''': Given the probabilities of two events, people will often simply either add them or multiply them. Generally speaking, calculating the combined probability is much more complicated. For example, suppose you roll a die twice. The probability of a six is 1/6 each time, so the probability of at least one six in two rolls must be 1/3, right?[[note]]It's actually 11/36, or about 31%. This is because of all the 36 possible options (1-1, 1-2, 1-3 etc...) Only 11 contain the number 6. These are (1-6,2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6, their inverses and 6-6 which only counts once and not twoce, which is why the odds aren't 1/3 but instead 11/36. [[/note]]

**to:**

* '''Naïve Combination of Probabilities''': Given the probabilities of two events, people will often simply either add them or multiply them. Generally speaking, calculating the combined probability is much more complicated. For example, suppose you roll a die twice. The probability of a six is 1/6 each time, so the probability of at least one six in two rolls must be 1/3, right?[[note]]It's actually 11/36, or about 31%. This is because of all the 36 possible options (1-1, 1-2, 1-3 etc...) ~~Only ~~only 11 contain the number 6. These are (1-6,2-6,3-6,4-6,5-6, their ~~inverses ~~inverses, and 6-6 which only counts once and not ~~twoce, ~~twice, which is why the odds aren't 1/3 but instead 11/36. [[/note]]

This list shows the last 10 events of 191. Show all.