Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 93 (click to see context) from:
* A banner ad right here on TV Tropes promotes TheChurchOfHappyology, rhetorically asking, "Why is it the world's fastest growing religion?" Hmmm, maybe because this religion that [[FrivolousLawsuit cannot be named for legal reasons]] was founded less than 100 years ago, and most major religions are thousands of years old and likely have grown as much as they ever will? Or because they count ad clicks as memberships.
to:
* A banner ad right here on TV Tropes promotes TheChurchOfHappyology, The ChurchOfHappyology, rhetorically asking, "Why is it the world's fastest growing religion?" Hmmm, maybe because this religion that [[FrivolousLawsuit cannot be named for legal reasons]] was founded less than 100 years ago, and most major religions are thousands of years old and likely have grown as much as they ever will? Or because they count ad clicks as memberships.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 93 (click to see context) from:
* A banner ad right here on TV Tropes promotes Scientology, rhetorically asking, "Why is it the world's fastest growing religion?" Hmmm, maybe because Scientology was founded less than 100 years ago, and most major religions are thousands of years old and likely have grown as much as they ever will? Or because they count ad clicks as memberships.
to:
* A banner ad right here on TV Tropes promotes Scientology, TheChurchOfHappyology, rhetorically asking, "Why is it the world's fastest growing religion?" Hmmm, maybe because Scientology this religion that [[FrivolousLawsuit cannot be named for legal reasons]] was founded less than 100 years ago, and most major religions are thousands of years old and likely have grown as much as they ever will? Or because they count ad clicks as memberships.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
It\'s still true
Changed line(s) 86 (click to see context) from:
** YouFailLogicForever if you take an Orthodox church operated survey's word for how many Russians are Orthodox Christian. There should be a registry of the Orthodox church's members, which compared with the official census of Russia would yield a more reliable percentage. Some countries include religion (for taxing purposes) in the civil registry info collected.
to:
** YouFailLogicForever if Not that you can take an Orthodox church operated survey's word for how many Russians are Orthodox Christian. There should be a registry of the Orthodox church's members, which compared with the official census of Russia would yield a more reliable percentage. Some countries include religion (for taxing purposes) in the civil registry info collected.
Changed line(s) 90 (click to see context) from:
* Italy got South Tirol, actually a part of Austria, to be added to their territory after WorldWarII by using this kind of statistics to convince the Americans that the area was mostly populated by Italians. Which it wasn't. Up till today, most of South Tirol's population speaks German for a first language and watched German and Austrian TV, rather than the Italian channels.
to:
* Italy got South Tirol, Sudtirol, actually a part of Austria, to be added to their territory after WorldWarII by using this kind of statistics to convince the Americans that the area was mostly populated by Italians. Which it wasn't. Up till today, To this day, most of South Tirol's Sudtirol's population speaks German for a first language and watched watches German and Austrian TV, rather than the Italian channels.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 74,75 (click to see context) from:
* The JusticeLeague quote at the top is an often alluded to occurrence of this. Aside from the fact that the same was true before the formation of the League, until the end of time, a significant portion of marriages will end in death, as people do have a tendency to die, married or not.
--> Godfrey: Maybe you'd care to explain why on your watch, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the other 50% end in death!
--> Godfrey: Maybe you'd care to explain why on your watch, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the other 50% end in death!
to:
* The JusticeLeague quote at was asked "Maybe you'd care to explain why on your watch, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the top is an often alluded to occurrence of this. other 50% end in death!" Aside from the fact that the same was true before the formation of the League, until the end of time, a significant portion of marriages will end in death, as people do have a tendency to die, married or not.
--> Godfrey: Maybe you'd care to explain why on your watch, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the other 50% end in death!not.
--> Godfrey: Maybe you'd care to explain why on your watch, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the other 50% end in death!
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 73 (click to see context) from:
* There is a book produced for people in radio every year that compiles countless statistics about all stations taken from polls. These are used to attract advertisers. The less successful stations who have very few listeners are often forced to hire people who read through the book to get as many favorable statistics as possible, no matter how convoluted they may be. With the huge amount of data in the book, it's possible to say, for instance, that 85% of married men aged some arbitrary amount with income in some arbitrary range and who own a ferret will love your show, even though they represent a tiny proportion of the population. It does get them advertisers, so it works out in the end.
to:
* There is a book produced for people in radio every year that compiles countless statistics about all stations taken from polls. These are used to attract advertisers. The less successful stations who have very few listeners are often forced to hire people who read through the book to get as many favorable statistics as possible, no matter how convoluted they may be. With the huge amount of data in the book, it's possible to say, for instance, that 85% of married men aged some arbitrary amount with income in some arbitrary range and who own a ferret will love your show, even though they represent a tiny proportion of the population. It does get them advertisers, so it works out in the end.Of course, if you're selling ferret food, that's exactly whom you want to reach.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Probably, or they went by election returns. Even if not, it\'s a slightly different error.
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
**** Then again, screwdrivers themself are buildt to take much more than driving a screw in, because people started using them for things like opening paint cans (and breaking into houses).
to:
**** Then again, screwdrivers themself are buildt built to take much more than driving a screw in, because people started using them for things like opening paint cans (and breaking into houses).
Changed line(s) 61 (click to see context) from:
* Statistically, there are 6 Popes per square mile in the Vatican, which is 1/2 of a square kilometer. Tee-hee, funny joke... but remember that, the next time someone tells you how many Republicans or Democrats there are in a particular region. Did they count them? Probably not.
to:
* Statistically, there are 6 Popes per square mile in the Vatican, which is 1/2 of a square kilometer. Tee-hee, funny joke... but remember that, the next time someone tells you how many Republicans or Democrats there are in a particular region. Did they count them? Probably not.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 105 (click to see context) from:
to:
* [[http://www.badscience.net/ badscience.net]] occasionally shows how statistics get misused. For example, [[http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/ here]] (on small samples it's quite possible that B isn't significantly different from A ''or'' C, but you can put it as "B isn't different from A, C is different from A, so we see that C is different from B", which is wrong) and [[http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/ here]] (limit the view to one of many multipliers which ''per se'' can't prove anything). Unsurprisingly, the areas with traditional relations to snake oil trade suffer most.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 104,105 (click to see context) from:
* Programs on AnimalPlanet are fond of citing how Americans spend more money annually on cat or dog food than on baby food. This implies that Americans pamper their pets like babies, but overlooks the fact that pets eat pet food for their entire lives, whereas babies graduate to other foods within a couple of years.
to:
* Programs on AnimalPlanet are fond of citing how Americans spend more money annually on cat or dog food than on baby food. This implies is depicted as evidence that Americans pamper their pets like babies, but overlooks the fact that pets eat pet food for their entire lives, whereas babies graduate to other foods within only eat baby food for about a couple of years.
year and a half.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Programs on AnimalPlanet are fond of citing how Americans spend more money annually on cat or dog food than on baby food. This implies that Americans pamper their pets like babies, but overlooks the fact that pets eat pet food for their entire lives, whereas babies graduate to other foods within a couple of years.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Shizuo in {{Durarara}} maintains that the series's troll, Izaya, is behind ''every '''single''' weird thing in the setting.'' Sure, Shizuo can get irrational when mad, and will even use statistics and percents to maintain points. [[ProperlyParanoid ...Did we mention Izaya's a troll?]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:
* Another WorldWarII example: Many works about the Battle of Britain tend to portray the Royal Air Force as outnumbered several times over by counting just the planes and aircrew belonging to [=RAF=] Fighter Command against the planes and aircrew of the Luftwaffe (and Italian Air Force) forces attacking Britain - fighters, bombers, reconnaissance planes, in some cases even sea-air rescue planes. If you count [=RAF=] Bomber Command etc. as well British and German forces were roughly equal in the summer of 1940, but that fact does tend to get lost, just like the fact when it came to the planned invasion of England the German commanders had to be more concerned about British bombers than fighter planes. Bomber Command also lost more personnel than Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, and it may well have caused the crucial turning-point because their raids on Berlin led Hitler to order the Luftwaffe to switch from attacking the airfields in the South of England to attacking London, which helped Fighter Command because London was at the limit of the range of German single-engine fighters and the longer time to reach it also enabled the British to assemble greater forces to intercept the attackers.
to:
* Another WorldWarII example: Many works about the Battle of Britain tend to portray the Royal Air Force as outnumbered several times over by counting just the planes and aircrew belonging to [=RAF=] Fighter Command against the planes and aircrew of the Luftwaffe (and Italian Air Force) forces attacking Britain - fighters, bombers, reconnaissance planes, in some cases even sea-air rescue planes. If you count [=RAF=] Bomber Command etc. as well British and German forces were roughly equal in the summer of 1940, but that fact does tend to get lost, just like the fact when it came to the planned invasion of England the German commanders had to be more concerned about British bombers than fighter planes. Bomber Command also lost more personnel than Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, and it may well have caused the crucial turning-point because their raids on Berlin led Hitler to order the Luftwaffe to switch from attacking the airfields in the South of England to attacking London, which helped Fighter Command because London was at the limit of the range of German single-engine fighters and the longer time to reach it also enabled the British to assemble greater forces to intercept the attackers. Churchill's praise for "the Few", the way the Battle of Britain clasp was awarded and the way some writers say that Britain and the Free World was saved by "just 3,080 men" (Francis K. Mason) also very much ignores the far from negligible parts played by the groundcrews (often under air attacks themselves), anti-aircraft gunners, observers and radar crew etc.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Another WorldWarII example: Many works about the Battle of Britain tend to portray the Royal Air Force as outnumbered several times over by counting just the planes and aircrew belonging to [=RAF=] Fighter Command against the planes and aircrew of the Luftwaffe (and Italian Air Force) forces attacking Britain - fighters, bombers, reconnaissance planes, in some cases even sea-air rescue planes. If you count [=RAF=] Bomber Command etc. as well British and German forces were roughly equal in the summer of 1940, but that fact does tend to get lost, just like the fact when it came to the planned invasion of England the German commanders had to be more concerned about British bombers than fighter planes. Bomber Command also lost more personnel than Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, and it may well have caused the crucial turning-point because their raids on Berlin led Hitler to order the Luftwaffe to switch from attacking the airfields in the South of England to attacking London, which helped Fighter Command because London was at the limit of the range of German single-engine fighters and the longer time to reach it also enabled the British to assemble greater forces to intercept the attackers.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Removed extra indent.
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
*** Which is why it's so disturbing you're also less likely to die from a shark attack than from falling into a hole someone dug on the beach. Let's just stay off the beach shall we?
to:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Except that it doesn't, thus neatly demonstrating this article; without knowing about what ''other'' factors may be involved, no concrete conclusions can be drawn from that correlation. Other factors could be masking a relation between the two if one did in fact exist.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
**** Then again, screwdrivers themself are buildt to take much more than driving a screw in, because people started using them for things like opening paint cans (and breaking into houses).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Which is why it's so disturbing you're also less likely to die from a shark attack than from falling into a hole someone dug on the beach. Let's just stay off the beach shall we?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Really, this is only because it's in Britain and the phrase "Those murderous rampaging kill bots" is reserved for [[DoctorWho Daleks]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 16,17 (click to see context) from:
The bogus uses of statistics are intended to imply a causal link between two elements when they are not linked, the link is questionable, or the link is opposite to what is implied. A beautiful example? "Coca-Cola causes drowning". By looking at statistics on drowning and Coca-Cola sales, you can see a link -- more people go swimming on hot days, and more people buy Coke on hot days. Likewise, birth rates per head of population are higher in areas where there are more storks -- because birth rates are always higher in rural areas, which is where one finds the DeliveryStork.
to:
The bogus uses of statistics are intended to imply a causal link between two elements when they are not linked, the link is questionable, or the link is opposite to what is implied. A beautiful example? "Coca-Cola causes drowning". By looking at statistics on drowning and Coca-Cola sales, you can see a link -- [[InsaneTrollLogic more people go swimming on hot days, and more people buy Coke on hot days. days]]. Likewise, birth rates per head of population are higher in areas where there are more storks -- because birth rates are always higher in rural areas, which is where one finds the DeliveryStork.
DeliveryStork. [[YouFailLogicForever Correlation does not equal causation]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 94 (click to see context) from:
* The Victorian-era belief that masturbation could drive men insane was derived from a similar error, in that mental asylums reported frequent Dates With Rosie Palms among inmates. The fact that mental illness can impair inhibitions ''against'' such behavior wasn't considered, nor the fact that men locked up in an asylum had no other means to occupy their time.
to:
* The Victorian-era belief that masturbation could drive men insane was derived from a similar error, in that mental asylums reported frequent Dates With Rosie Palms among inmates. The fact that mental illness can impair inhibitions ''against'' such behavior wasn't considered, nor the fact that men locked up in an asylum had no few other means to occupy their time.respites from misery, frustration or boredom.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* The Victorian-era belief that masturbation could drive men insane was derived from a similar error, in that mental asylums reported frequent Dates With Rosie Palms among inmates. The fact that mental illness can impair inhibitions ''against'' such behavior wasn't considered, nor the fact that men locked up in an asylum had no other means to occupy their time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* Two sports teams each only play one game in a season, and that game is against each other. How does the losing team make themselves sound good and their opponents sound bad? [[spoiler: They say they only lost one game all season, and that their opponents only won one game all season.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The same goes with good doctors and bad doctors, as told in the book [[SuperFreakonomics Super Freakonomics]]. Good doctors are generally given tougher causes while bad doctors are given easier cases. However, if you look at death rates you see that some doctors have higher death rates, but these are usually the good doctors. Patients with serious cases are more likely to die, so good doctors lose a lot of their patients than, say the doctor who cures hiccups. The lesson is that you can be fairly certain that the doctor you receive at a hospital is competent enough to be assigned to you.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Taken from the quotes page, one quote should be enough
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
->''"If enough data is collected, a board of inquiry can prove anything."''
-->-- '''Murphy's Law of Combat #75'''
-->-- '''Murphy's Law of Combat #75'''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ''Luke Surl'' expresses this via VisualPun [[http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/3105 here]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Source, please.
Deleted line(s) 69 (click to see context) :
* There was a vegetarian website decrying dairy, which noted that some ridiculously huge percentage of the typical American's diet consisted of it[[hottip:* :by weight]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Minus the natter, the initial example counts.
Added DiffLines:
* The FoxNewsChannel flashed a ''[[http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/OneNineThree.jpg pie chart]]'' whose claimed percentages added up to ''193%''. Any grade school student can tell you that pie charts don't work that way! Eyeballing the above pie chart the 63% segment looks larger than the 70% segment.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
To quote the description: \"When adding examples, please remember that this trope is not about amusing statistical fallacies, but about using statistics to deceive people as to the truth.\"
Deleted line(s) 78,80 (click to see context) :
* The FoxNewsChannel flashed a ''[[http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/OneNineThree.jpg pie chart]]'' whose claimed percentages added up to ''193%''. Any grade school student can tell you that pie charts don't work that way! Eyeballing the above pie chart the 63% segment looks larger than the 70% segment.
** It's possible that each voter's choice was not exclusive; i.e., an individual voter could vote for one choice, all three, or any combination thereof. In any case, the percentages were wrong or the pie chart was wrongly chosen to illustrate the data. A better option would have been a bar graph. Or, if combinations of cast votes are being considered, a Venn diagram.
** It's also possible that the survey was fundamentally flawed e.g. asking 100 people whether they would vote for one person, then asking a separate 100 people whether they would vote for the second person etc. This would seemingly give, albeit somewhat skewed, percentages for each candidate.
** It's possible that each voter's choice was not exclusive; i.e., an individual voter could vote for one choice, all three, or any combination thereof. In any case, the percentages were wrong or the pie chart was wrongly chosen to illustrate the data. A better option would have been a bar graph. Or, if combinations of cast votes are being considered, a Venn diagram.
** It's also possible that the survey was fundamentally flawed e.g. asking 100 people whether they would vote for one person, then asking a separate 100 people whether they would vote for the second person etc. This would seemingly give, albeit somewhat skewed, percentages for each candidate.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, those statistics usually amount to "X% of car accidents are caused by alcohol." That also means that 100-X% of all crashes AREN'T caused by alcohol. In other words, the argument is flawed. It should rather be "alcohol increases the likeliness of car accidents by X%".
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
swapping ptitle and redirect
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
[[[redirect:{{ptitle5kgfz6fn1lso}}]]
to:
This well-known saying is part of a phrase attributed to BenjaminDisraeli and popularized in the U.S. by MarkTwain:
"''There are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damned lies, and statistics.''"
With the magic of numbers, you can lie without getting into trouble.
This trope covers all instances where statistics are used to deceive people as to the truth. The problem is, people do not pay attention to the context, just the numbers. For example, the statement "Brand X is 84% fat-free" sounds good until you realize that this means the food product is 16% fat by weight. Also, "fastest growing" could mean that there used to be one customer and then there were five more, making a five-hundred percent increase.
The whole business of throwing percentages at people in advertising is almost destined for this kind of abuse. Relative measures are more likely to be understood accurately, and thus are less likely to be used in advertising.
The bogus uses of statistics are intended to imply a causal link between two elements when they are not linked, the link is questionable, or the link is opposite to what is implied. A beautiful example? "Coca-Cola causes drowning". By looking at statistics on drowning and Coca-Cola sales, you can see a link -- more people go swimming on hot days, and more people buy Coke on hot days. Likewise, birth rates per head of population are higher in areas where there are more storks -- because birth rates are always higher in rural areas, which is where one finds the DeliveryStork.
Also be aware of the Law of Very Large Numbers. Any fraction of a very large number is likely to be a large number, no matter how small the fraction is. It is estimated that 2,135,000 Americans have used cocaine (including crack) in the past month. But that's only 0.7% of the population! So, is this a lot of people, or not?
Then you can get the kind of statistical abuse in which you are careful to define the question to get you answer you want. What is the most popular book in the world? Depends if you mean most copies in existence (Quotations from Chairman Mao), most copies ever sold (TheBible) or fastest selling ever (''HarryPotter/HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallows'').
Statistics are like studies: who made them and who paid them matters a lot. Want to "prove" that [[MurderSimulators video games cause violence]]? Get a group of scientists that are already savvy to this and don't mind the lack of ethics. Have them draw from a very small pool of test subjects that are known to display violent behavior. Mental hospitals, prisons, schools for children with behavior disorders, what have you. Do some generic tests that are guaranteed to show up positive, come up with numbers, and presto, instant headline. "Recent test shows 77% of subjects become more violent after playing ''MortalKombat''." Most people won't bother with reading the article the whole way through and will just look at the headline. This works with anything from [[ComicsCode comic books]], and rock to watching ''BrokebackMountain'' or voting for specific parties, basically anything.
Confirmation bias, or the tendency for people to search out statistics that support their preconceived notions and ignore statistics that don't, is the reason for many of the entries on this list. It's also the reason most scientific and medical studies are done double-blind (meaning, neither the researchers nor the participants know who's in the experimental group nor who's in the control group). But you should beware of any advertisements touting a "double-blind" study, especially late-night ads, because they tend to violate the truth-in-advertising laws.
In the end, statistics are not lies and statistics don't lie: people lie about the statistic itself or how it is interpreted. Some don't lie, they are simply ignorant, as are most members of the public in terms of statistical interpretation. See YouFailLogicForever and CriticalResearchFailure.
Put another way, by [[GameOfNerds baseball]] announcer Vin Scully:
->"''People use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post -- [[YouFailStatisticsForever for support, not illumination]].''"
See also NineOutOfTenDoctorsAgree, which is much a sub trope to this.
When adding examples, please remember that this trope is not about amusing statistical fallacies, but about using statistics to deceive people as to the truth.
----
!!Straight examples:
* During WorldWarI, helmets were almost withdrawn from British soldiers when it was noticed that the rate of head wounds had shot up after their issue. The reason? A "head wound" meant someone who was shot in the head and ''survived''. People who died from a bullet in the brain were instead listed as "fatalities". Since helmets let more people survive, the number of head wounds soared. A politician used the the number to support his position that "helmets are expensive and cause cowardice", and of course never explained what it really meant.
* Something of a historical subversion: During WorldWarII, the Royal Air Force wanted to add more armor to their planes, but because of weight limits they needed to know which places needed the armor most. So, they examined the planes after they came back and counted how often bullet holes were found in certain areas... and then placed armor in places that showed the ''fewest'' bullet holes. This is because, they assumed, that any place that did have bullet holes was a place that planes could be hit and still fly. Helped by the fact: No plane that ever came back had holes where the gas tank was. Because planes which tank was hit would explode and ''not come back''.
* It's a bit like the "statistics" on shark shows. "You are more likely to die on the toilet than be eaten by a shark." When you compare how much time you spend around sharks versus how much time you spend around toilets ... really, the toilet has time to plan out its move in advance.
** Same deal with most accidents occurring in the home. Considering that you spend the majority of your time ''in your home'', this should come as no surprise to anyone.
** The same for the example above about most vehicular accidents occurring near the home (some say "within 25 miles from your home"). This is because most people do most of their driving near their homes, not that the home or the surrounding area is more dangerous than areas distant from the home.
** At some Reform Judaism synagogues, a popular "joke" to lead into the sermon is, "x% of deaths occur in a hospital, x% of deaths occur in a car, x% of deaths happen in the home...[continues on for a while] while there have been only ''three'' deaths in a synagogue, and no deaths ever reported while studying Torah! Clearly, the safest passion, therefore, is studying Torah."
* One of Bothered About {{Dungeons and Dragons}} ([[FunWithAcronyms BADD]])'s favorite weapons was a list of over 500 Americans they claimed were gamers who had committed suicide in the same year. Thus role playing games somehow cause suicide. Except that even if you take this bogus statistic at face value, 500 suicides a year is still a lower percentage of suicides than ''clergy'' and a tiny fraction of the average.
** Patricia Pulling, the leader of this organization, once said in an interview that "8% of the Richmond VA-area population is involved with Satanic worship at some level." When asked where that figure came from, she said that she estimated that 4% of the teenagers and 4% of the adults. She then added them together and got the 8%.
** Another time, BADD cited an increase in suicides corresponding with a major Dungeons and Dragons release. Again, however, there's no evidence that's not simply a coincidence, as similar statistics can be used to prove that the release of a BritneySpears CD caused suicide numbers to jump.
* Newspapers love doing this with drug related stories. It's almost impossible to see Ecstasy mentioned in a British newspaper without the qualifier "That killer drug", the supporting statistic is of course that a dozen people die per year from consuming it. Yet over the course of a year they will rack up an impressive body count in stories about fatal car accidents without ever devolving into calling cars "Those murderous rampaging kill bots" How many Britons drive? How many take E?
** The heck with cars - how many deaths are caused by entirely ''legal'' drugs? - cigarettes, alcohol, over the counter medications, misused prescriptions...
** In 2008 Britain also banned the sale of curved swords, due to reports that samurai-style swords had been used in 80 attacks and caused four fatalities over the previous four years. The published statistics only served to make the move even more unpopular, and it was relaxed the same year (anything that can even be loosely classed as a "martial arts" weapon is now legal to trade again - which interestingly only means the available swords are ''more'' dangerous, [[NiceJobBreakingItHero as they now have to be made of good-quality steel]]).
*** That makes them [[DidNotDoTheResearch less dangerous]]. The danger from cheap steel is that it will snap and cause the tip to go flying or shatter, sending razor-sharp shards into your leg (2nd-hand experience thankfully). Even the cheapest piece of steel (think- sharpened screwdriver) will pierce flesh fatally. Quality weaponry doesn't make you kill better, it makes the sword less likely to kill you.
* A related strategy was used by US president RichardNixon to portray marijuana as a gateway drug. His anti-drug team estimated that 80% of marijuana users go on to use cocaine; actually, 80% of cocaine users had started with pot, but only about one in 2,400 marijuana users go on to use cocaine. And related to that, most people willing to take a drug as dangerous as cocaine are willing to take a drug as relatively safe as marijuana. It's the same reason most marijuana smokers have drunk alcohol at some point, and why most alcohol drinkers have drunk something with caffeine in it. Water: the Gateway Chemical
* NineOutOfTenDoctorsAgree has been practically a stock phrase in advertising since the early 20th century.
** "Nine out of ten dentists recommend Trident for their patients who chew gum." The tenth dentist was insistent that his patients never chew gum at all, but surprisingly, Trident didn't want you to know about that.
** One interesting case happened in Portugal, where two ads were being broadcasted on national TV during the same period (and sometimes even in the same commercial break) claiming, respectively, that '90% of dentists use toothpaste X' and '8 out of 10 dentists recommend toothpaste Y to their family'. Together, [[FridgeLogic if you stop to think about it]], they imply [[UnfortunateImplications something is not quite right about those professionals' concern over their own family]]...
* ''YesMinister'' has a very interesting section on this. In a discussion about conscription, [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo Sir Humphrey demonstrates to Bernard how statistics can be obtained which prove both sides of the discussion correct]], through the use of leading questions which are not included in the reporting of the survey concerned.
* Darrell Huff's "How To Lie With Statistics" was printed in the '50s. It's [[strike:usually available on eBay]] [[LongRunner still in print]] and is a very easy read that shows you all the basics.
* Statistically, there are 6 Popes per square mile in the Vatican, which is 1/2 of a square kilometer. Tee-hee, funny joke... but remember that, the next time someone tells you how many Republicans or Democrats there are in a particular region. Did they count them? Probably not.
* A [[http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/dodgy-digits-behind-the-war-on-piracy.ars recent Ars Technica article]] discussed the statistics usually used by software developers to complain about piracy. Specifically, the article pointed out that the statistics most commonly cited are most likely not only bullshit, but old bullshit. Amusingly enough, the image used for the related post on Gamepolitics was a pie chart divided into three sections, marked "Lies/Damned Lies/Statistics".
* A recent Trojan Condoms commercial claims that the United States ranks between two African nations in HIV cases. This means nothing, since the population of the USA is much higher than either of those countries!
* Anti-pornography activists sometimes cite studies showing a correlation between areas with higher rates of pornography consumption and higher rates of rape. While this is true, there's an even ''bigger'' correlation between rape and the consumption of non-pornographic "manly" magazines like ''Field and Stream'' and ''Guns & Ammo'', yet no one suggests that preventing men from reading magazines about hunting and guns would lead to less rape.
** Advocating a ban on something because its consumption correlates with rape is [[NiceJobBreakingItHero very dangerous]]. Even if there were a causal link, consumption is affected by factors other than availability, and [[http://slate.com/id/2152487 increased availability of pornography reduces rape]].
** After pornography was made legal in Japan, the number of rapes ''decreased''. While this is not necessarily prove that pornography prevents rape, it at least shows that one has nothing to do with the other.
* Even ''{{QI}}'' falls victim to this from time to time. One question was "What is three times more dangerous than war?" The answer given was work, because three times as many people are killed each year in work-related accidents than die in wars. Now, consider how much time you spent working last year compared to how long you were in a warzone.
** This prompted unhelpful responses from the panelists: "What if you're a soldier?" "What if you work in a shoe shop, ''near'' a war?"
** QI is well known for deliberately phrasing questions like this in order to confuse the participants. See also "how many moons does the Earth have" -- funny as it was, Cruithne and similar objects are near-Earth asteroids in resonant orbits rather than moons in the usual sense. They've now fessed up to the "many moons" thing as an error.
* The ''Column 8'' column in the ''Sydney Morning Herald'' once referenced a statistical correlation between the difficulty of the sudoku on a given day and the price of petrol.
* When RonaldReagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese wanted "proof" that pornography was evil, he created the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. The commission members were a preselected cohort of anti-pornography campaigners. Not surprisingly, they discovered that statistics "proved" that pornography caused crime. However, the 1970 report of the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, which was done by honest researchers and was highly praised for accuracy and honesty, discovered that there was "no evidence to date that exposure to explicit sexual materials plays a significant role in the causation of delinquent or criminal behavior among youths or adults."
* There is a book produced for people in radio every year that compiles countless statistics about all stations taken from polls. These are used to attract advertisers. The less successful stations who have very few listeners are often forced to hire people who read through the book to get as many favorable statistics as possible, no matter how convoluted they may be. With the huge amount of data in the book, it's possible to say, for instance, that 85% of married men aged some arbitrary amount with income in some arbitrary range and who own a ferret will love your show, even though they represent a tiny proportion of the population. It does get them advertisers, so it works out in the end.
* The JusticeLeague quote at the top is an often alluded to occurrence of this. Aside from the fact that the same was true before the formation of the League, until the end of time, a significant portion of marriages will end in death, as people do have a tendency to die, married or not.
--> Godfrey: Maybe you'd care to explain why on your watch, 50% of marriages now end in divorce, and the other 50% end in death!
* In the heated German censorship debate about blocking sites allegedly containing child pornography, an organization in favor of this censorship law ordered a survey at a market research institute with questions basically asking if the person taking the survey is against child pornography and in favor of blocking the websites containing it. Over 90% answered 'Yes'. Another survey ordered by an opposing NGO -- at the same institute no less -- used a slightly different phrasing: Do you agree with blocking the content despite the fact that this content still exists and is easily accessible after the censorship? Over 90% answered with 'No'.
* There was a vegetarian website decrying dairy, which noted that some ridiculously huge percentage of the typical American's diet consisted of it[[hottip:* :by weight]].
* An old advert for Guinness ran with the quote "88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot", attributed to Vic Reeves.
* Fletcher Knebel was apparently responsible for "Smoking is the leading cause of statistics", the most famous of which is "100% of non-smokers die".
** In Montreal, there was an ad campaign run by a gum company whose gum came in round shapes instead of the usual square shapes. The ad said, "100% of people who chew square gum die."
* Many casinos like to advertise their slot machines with lines like "Up To 99% Payout!" to make it sound like the player has a good chance to win. First, "up to" means the payout could be 1% for all you know (although laws usually set a minimum). Secondly, even a 99% payout means that for every $100 you put in the machine, on average, you'll get $99 back, i.e. you still lose. That "99% payout" is also an average that is based on something like one million pulls (plays) on the machine. If you play 100 times in one slot machine, you're not getting a representative sample of that average.
** Note that these machines work differently in the UK. UK Fun With Prizes are required by law to seek their set hold percentage within a certain number of spins (usually 10,000). To achieve this, they naturally [[TheComputerIsACheatingBastard cheat all the time]]. They also can be, and often are, programmed to go on a suck cycle and take in way more money then they need to, in order to save up for a large series of payouts later.
* A common problem encountered is Simpson's Paradox, best demonstrated by example: Suppose Hospitals 1 and 2 are nearby, but 1 is better equipped for treating people with severe injuries, so proportionally more of the people taken there are badly hurt. It does better at treating badly hurt people than hospital 2, and also does better at treating people who are not badly hurt. However, since people who're badly hurt are more likely to die than people who're not badly hurt whether or not they go to hospital 1 or hospital 2, hospital 1 may still have a higher overall death rate.\\
\\
Simpson's Paradox is when data shows one trend, but dividing it into categories shows the opposite trend. In the example above, hospital 1 has a higher death rate, but if the patients are split into categories based on severity of injury, it has a lower death rate in each category.
* The FoxNewsChannel flashed a ''[[http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/OneNineThree.jpg pie chart]]'' whose claimed percentages added up to ''193%''. Any grade school student can tell you that pie charts don't work that way! Eyeballing the above pie chart the 63% segment looks larger than the 70% segment.
** It's possible that each voter's choice was not exclusive; i.e., an individual voter could vote for one choice, all three, or any combination thereof. In any case, the percentages were wrong or the pie chart was wrongly chosen to illustrate the data. A better option would have been a bar graph. Or, if combinations of cast votes are being considered, a Venn diagram.
** It's also possible that the survey was fundamentally flawed e.g. asking 100 people whether they would vote for one person, then asking a separate 100 people whether they would vote for the second person etc. This would seemingly give, albeit somewhat skewed, percentages for each candidate.
* When Russian Orthodox Church is up to banning some more fun stuff, it likes to self-impose the "voice of the populus" liability backed by the claim that according to surveys "70% of Russians are Orthodox Christians". Then some major religious occasion comes in and the attendance rate inevitably mounts to 2-3%. The surveys about the attendance of regular clerical services and general awareness in Orthodox lore yield similar results.
** YouFailLogicForever if you take an Orthodox church operated survey's word for how many Russians are Orthodox Christian. There should be a registry of the Orthodox church's members, which compared with the official census of Russia would yield a more reliable percentage. Some countries include religion (for taxing purposes) in the civil registry info collected.
* Groups against drunk driving usually refer to "alcohol-related crashes". It's implied that these are all the driver's fault, except that it includes accidents where a passenger is drunk, or if it's a pedestrian involved accident, the pedestrian was drunk. If ''anyone'' involved was drunk, it becomes alcohol-related.
* Ever wonder how all car insurance companies manage to to advertise that "people who switch from <competing company> to <our company> save an average of <large amount of money or substantial percentage>"? It's because the sample population "people who switch" is almost entirely composed of "people who are going to save a big chunk of money doing so", or else why would they bother to switch? Since no record is kept of the percentage of people who would not save any money and therefore don't switch, the cited statistic has almost no meaning.
* Italy got South Tirol, actually a part of Austria, to be added to their territory after WorldWarII by using this kind of statistics to convince the Americans that the area was mostly populated by Italians. Which it wasn't. Up till today, most of South Tirol's population speaks German for a first language and watched German and Austrian TV, rather than the Italian channels.
* Wolf Blitzer on polling information about the recent health care debate in American politics:
-->We did that poll CNN Opinion Research Poll, that said, "You like this health care bill or not like it?" We just assumed, a lot of us, that the people who said they didn't like it didn't like it because it was too much interference, or too much taxes or whatever. But if you take a closer look at people who didn’t like it, about 12% of those people who said they didn’t like it thought it didn't go far enough. They wanted a single payer option, they wanted the so-called public option, they didn’t like not from the right, they didn’t like it because it wasn’t left or liberal enough. That’s how you got 50% of the American people who said, "We don’t like this plan." But only about 40 or 38% were the ones who said it was too much government interference.
* A banner ad right here on TV Tropes promotes Scientology, rhetorically asking, "Why is it the world's fastest growing religion?" Hmmm, maybe because Scientology was founded less than 100 years ago, and most major religions are thousands of years old and likely have grown as much as they ever will? Or because they count ad clicks as memberships.
* In the 2004 US Presidential Election, Dick Cheney and John Edwards stated conflicting numbers regarding the Iraq war's casualties... and both men [[http://www.factcheck.org/cheney_edwards_mangle_facts.html were partially right]]! Skip down to "90% of casualties".
* The AustralianFootballLeague managed to turn an increase in positive drug tests into a decrease in positive drug tests. [[http://koberulz.webege.com/Blog/2010/08182010Numbers_Lie.php]]
* One statistic used to justify the creation of the Comics Code Authority was that a large percentage of criminals liked to read comic books, ergo, comic books influenced people to become criminals. Nobody pointed out that they were using the wrong statistic - they should have been asking what percentage of regular comic book readers became criminals.
** Asking what percentage of criminals were literate enough to read anything ''but'' comic books wouldn't have hurt, either. Comics, after all, have pictures.
* When Anthrocon decided to move from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, one blogger who protested the move cited that only a tiny number of people of people would be as likely or more likely to attend Anthrocon if it moved to Pittsburgh. The organizers, however, heeded a different statistic: those that lived so far away that the move made little difference.
* Racial profiling tends to be justified by all manner of statistics taken outside of context. An example commonly used by right-wing commentators: 1 in every 3 black males goes to prison, so black people must be more criminally inclined... Now, by "goes to prison", does that mean currently ''in'' prison, those who ''have'' been in prison, will ''go'' to prison, or some combination of the three? Does that statistic include repeat or first-time offenders? Also, exactly what are most black men imprisoned for? [[spoiler: Nonviolent drug-related charges for most first-time offenders.]]
* {{ABC}} loves to put out press releases trying to make the previous night's viewership of their shows look good. With their big hits, this isn't so bad; winning the timeslot in total viewers or Adults 18-49 (the demographic used to set ad rates, and thus the figure used to determine whether or not a show gets renewed) is definitely something to be pleased about (unless there's a huge skew between total and A18-49 viewership, but that's another matter). No matter how poorly-watched a show is, however, the ABC PR department can find some figure that sounds good but doesn't actually mean the show' doing well. They frequently put up demographics that aren't really indicative of a show's survival (e.g. women 18-34, or the adults 25-54 demo that only some cable channels use for ad rates), give the amount that the show built on its lead-in (usually when the lead-in was a repeat or another low-rated show, or [[BreadEggsBreadedEggs a repeat of another low-rated show]]), or claim the the show had the best performance in its timeslot among ABC shows since X weeks/months/years ago (when you look at the absolute ratings, all it says is that ABC's done even worse in the past; this is rarely used for hit new shows since there are usually better statistics for those).
!!Other examples:
* TheOnion does parody this from time to time.
** An article was about a movement to shut down hospitals because "despite rapid advancement in medical technology, the world death rate remains at 100%."
** Another article said that children are universally opposed to children's health care, with responses to the question "Do you want to go to the doctor?" ranging from "NO!!!!" to "inconsolable crying," but no children in favor.
* There is a semi-famous magazine article from 1958 called "The Dread Tomato Addiction" that correlates consumption of tomatoes with everything from death to communism. It can be found [[http://www.crystaloak.com/Gaijin/Essay/tomato_addiction.htm here]]. There is a similar article about bread that can be seen [[http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bread.asp here]].
* ''MontyPythonsFlyingCircus'' parodied the use/abuse of meaningless statistics in the sketch "Spectrum":
-->'''Man:''' This bar in this column represents seventeen percent of the population. This one represents twenty-eight percent of the population! And this one represents ''forty-three percent'' of the population!
-->'''Other Man:''' Telling figures indeed. But what do they mean to you? What do they mean to me? What do they mean to the average man on the street?
* Parodied in Australian political satire ''TheDingoPrinciple'':
-->Listen to this: 40% of people support the Prime Minister and 50% support the Opposition.
-->That's only 90%.
-->Yeah, there was one guy who said the samples weren't big enough to be statistically significant.
* Spoofed by ''[[TheDailyShow America: The Book]]'', which included a graph on "Growth of Misleading Charts". Two different bar heights represent the same number.
* An old [[ArchieComics Archie]] story had one of the characters becoming a statistics-obsessed nut [[NegativeContinuity for the duration of the story]], only for Jughead to start citing statistics that horrified them and lead them to run away in fright, at which point [[EmbarrassingMiddleName Forsythe]] noted that some ridiculously high percentage of people who quote statistics "make 'em up on the spot!"
* [[{{Comicbook/Batman}} The Penguin]] says this quote word-for-word in ''Detective Comics'' #684, at the same time pulling a YouHaveFailedMe on a newly-acquired henchman who, through usage of statistics, "proved" that a broad daylight robbery had a 0% chance of being foiled by Batman.
* A commonly-cited factoid about the American Revolution is that roughly 1/3 of the residents of the Thirteen Colonies favored independence from Britain, 1/3 opposed it, and 1/3 were undecided or apathetic. The comedy series ''History Bites'' (based on the premise: what if TV had been around for 5,000 years) parodied Tom Paine as a spin-doctoring pundit:
-->TOM PAINE: Only 1/3 of the colonists are opposed to independence. Now, you can't let a minority opinion like that influence public policy!
-->INTERVIEWER: But the same number are in favor of independence.
-->TOM PAINE: But now we're talking half of ''decided voters'', which is essentially a majority. You can't ignore the wishes of half of decided voters!
** The original "statistic" doesn't come from any actual poll anyway... it was an estimation made by John Adams, and he admitted he'd not done any research on that, just that it was his feeling on the matter.
* ''{{Penn and Teller Bullshit}}'' point it by having a man who makes pool research for the Republicans show he can make someone give two different answers to the same question by first asking: "Do you think the government expends too much in health care for immigrants?" The bystander answers "Yes". When he asks: "Would you deny an immigrant the right to treat himself? To give birth in a hospital? Etc..." and other medical services that go well beyond what the governments expends with immigrant health care, the answer now is: "No". Also, they make fun of the guy with his own mathematical wizardry by pointing out: "In this scene, ten cars pass by behind him. One guy from one of the cars shouts saying he sucks. This means that AT LEAST 10% of the American population believes he sucks".
* The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster has semi-famously pointed out the obvious correlation between the [[http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg decreasing number of pirates worldwide and Global Warming.]]
* There's a billboard along a freeway in Michigan, advertising a dentist willing to do implants for only a couple hundred dollars. Next to it is a statement saying "Voted best dental office in Michigan". Just below that, in smaller text, is the disclaimer "by our dental staff".
* One episode of ''TheBoondocks'' had Uncle Ruckus, an UncleTom racist, declare about the (black) man who invented peanut butter and hundreds of other uses for peanuts: "George Washington Carver was the man responsible for more ''peanut allergy deaths'' than any man '''in history'''!"
* SaturdayMorningBreakfastCereal tells us [[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2275 how to make anything a victimless crime]].
* An episode of TheSimpsons featured Homer forming a vigilante group to fight crime. At one point he recruits Jimbo (who calls the group "the drunken posse") on the basis that he can swing a sack full of doorknobs. Homer later gives an interview to the local news:
-->'''Kent Brockman:''' Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy sack beatings are up a shocking ''nine hundred percent''?
-->'''Homer:''' Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. ''Forfty'' percent of all people know that.
----
