I've long thought no one should be awarded a bachelor's level degree without successful completion of at least the one semester Introduction to Statistics. It's a matter of simple literacy. The problem is most apparent (and annoying) during election campaigns when journalists breathlessly report tiny differences or changes in polling results. We all too often only find the poll's estimated error interval buried near the end of the report if not omitted altogether.
Mar 27, 2023·edited Mar 27, 2023Liked by Colin Wright
Very good analysis.... and we see the fallacies applied to academic achievement, too... "When ‘Black’ & ‘Hispanic’ Students Outscore ‘Asian’ & ‘White’ Students on the ACT, Nobody Notices"
But, unfortunately, I'm no longer convinced that most people are willing to process information in the more subtle ways needed to follow your advice (as good as it is).... that takes a lot of time, energy, and often means that the information does not fall neatly into their world view.... It's easier, and more satisfying to simplify the information... that was one of the points that I tried to make in "There is 'Biological Evidence for Gender Identity...' but it’s not what you think."
In any event, I do hope that your advice impacts at least a few minds... I try to do the same every day in the classroom! Thanks again for a great essay... Sincerely, Frederick
I am loathe to prescribe malicious intent to individuals, let alone large organizations. I also have deep respect for expertise and scientific investigation. I am not a trained scientist and I can see the flaws in these arguments. Editors of your sampled publications must see them too. The general public should not have to have a degree in statistics to trust the reporting of scientific publications. So, I can’t make sense of this. Do I need to abandon my belief that science is the process of discerning truth?
Colloquially, men who ideate a female persona (such as my former husband, "Neddy" in my memoir) do latch on to the "intersex" label with the belief that there's a "psychological intersex" category, though this is not anywhere in the literature. It is their emotional mindset seeking the holy grail, the diagnosis that gives you all the "pass go, collect $200" cards in the Monopoly game of morphing into a "special female" category. Gone is any painful process of dragging childhood experiences of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment or chaos from family dysfunction. Replacing an actually valid therapeutic process is glitter world and the throne of gaslighting queen of the day. Of course they're going to misrepresent data and push this all down on children! It's justification~
This kind of article is exactly what we need to combat the woke! We need more awareness of strategies for getting closer to truth, such as statistics, logic, and especially logical fallacies and rhetorical games. These are academic subjects that were never very popular with the majority of students, and many people think they play no necessary role in sorting out truths and falsehoods. Now that there is an obvious practical need for people to acquire some basic competencies in this area, we have an opportunity to bring these competencies back into the foreground of education.
I like and agree with the argument for the second, narrower and more cryptic version of the Univariate Fallacy.
But I don't agree with the arguments you make in favour of the first, more common version of the Univariate Fallacy.
You state, “it is often claimed that black Americans are incarcerated at higher rates than other races…”
What do you mean, “… it is often claimed that …”. It’s an undisputable truth, surely? Do a quick Internet search if you want. I did today and found numerous corroborations and no rebuttals. But the recent ones were mostly from organisations that I haven’t heard of. So let me cite, for instance, this 1997 report by the US Department of Justice - https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf: is that good enough for you?
Then you say “… without controlling for crime rates” etc. But don't you see, that's all part and parcel of the same problem. Maybe black people have higher crime rates because white people get off more easily, or because white people are not as heavily policed in the first place, and so on.
Your assertion about ‘the purported “wage gap”’ is also mistaken in my view. It is not ‘purported’. It is real. And it is rooted in the very differences that you say are not being controlled for: differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. Have you forgotten that one of the main reasons why women accrue all these differences is because they take time off work to have babies and then take time to look after families more than men do?
On the whole I’m quite disappointed and irritated by your arguments on the common version of the Univariate Fallacy and that reduces the credibility of the rest of your argument.
My question actually comes from parents whose teenagers were taught this lesson. The question is... Is this based on legit science, or is it another example of wokish hogwash?
Thank you in advance for your help!
- Bob
p.s., I have a BS in biology, but that was a long time ago, and my graduate education and subsequent professional life was about engineering and business.
Nice to see you elaborate on polythetic categories, though you may have missed a bet by not emphasizing the other half of the coin, i.e., monothetic categories. You correctly point to the "false notion that 'male' and 'female' are polythetic categories" -- basically spectra -- but apparently miss the point that the standard biological definitions for the sexes are monothetic categories -- i.e., based on functional gonads as the single necessary and sufficient condition for category membership.
But maybe you've seen my several elaborations on that theme, most recently in my "Binarists vs Spectrumists" post? ... 😉🙂:
Though that's maybe something like one hand washing the other since you pointed me in the direction of those types of categories in the first place several years ago, and which provided a great deal of welcome illumination on a very sticky social problem. Don't recollect if you had provided a source or not, but, as I've indicated in my post, a couple of essays by social anthropologist Rodney Needham and Belgian virologist Marc Van Regenmortel have been the most useful sources I've run across:
In any case, the fundamental difference between those two types of categories is that, as indicated, the monothetic category has a single necessary AND sufficient condition for category membership whereas the polythetic category has multiple sufficient conditions for membership, only one -- any one -- of which is necessary.
However, that leads to a bit of a sticky wicket since the definitions that you, Emma Hilton, and Heather Heying had published in the UK Times letter section specifies three such sufficient conditions -- basically gonads of "past, present, or future functionality". Which, of course, turns your definitions for each sex into a polythetic category, into a spectrum of three.
I've long thought no one should be awarded a bachelor's level degree without successful completion of at least the one semester Introduction to Statistics. It's a matter of simple literacy. The problem is most apparent (and annoying) during election campaigns when journalists breathlessly report tiny differences or changes in polling results. We all too often only find the poll's estimated error interval buried near the end of the report if not omitted altogether.
Very good analysis.... and we see the fallacies applied to academic achievement, too... "When ‘Black’ & ‘Hispanic’ Students Outscore ‘Asian’ & ‘White’ Students on the ACT, Nobody Notices"
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/when-black-and-hispanic-students
But, unfortunately, I'm no longer convinced that most people are willing to process information in the more subtle ways needed to follow your advice (as good as it is).... that takes a lot of time, energy, and often means that the information does not fall neatly into their world view.... It's easier, and more satisfying to simplify the information... that was one of the points that I tried to make in "There is 'Biological Evidence for Gender Identity...' but it’s not what you think."
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/there-is-biological-evidence-for
In any event, I do hope that your advice impacts at least a few minds... I try to do the same every day in the classroom! Thanks again for a great essay... Sincerely, Frederick
I am loathe to prescribe malicious intent to individuals, let alone large organizations. I also have deep respect for expertise and scientific investigation. I am not a trained scientist and I can see the flaws in these arguments. Editors of your sampled publications must see them too. The general public should not have to have a degree in statistics to trust the reporting of scientific publications. So, I can’t make sense of this. Do I need to abandon my belief that science is the process of discerning truth?
Colloquially, men who ideate a female persona (such as my former husband, "Neddy" in my memoir) do latch on to the "intersex" label with the belief that there's a "psychological intersex" category, though this is not anywhere in the literature. It is their emotional mindset seeking the holy grail, the diagnosis that gives you all the "pass go, collect $200" cards in the Monopoly game of morphing into a "special female" category. Gone is any painful process of dragging childhood experiences of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, abandonment or chaos from family dysfunction. Replacing an actually valid therapeutic process is glitter world and the throne of gaslighting queen of the day. Of course they're going to misrepresent data and push this all down on children! It's justification~
This kind of article is exactly what we need to combat the woke! We need more awareness of strategies for getting closer to truth, such as statistics, logic, and especially logical fallacies and rhetorical games. These are academic subjects that were never very popular with the majority of students, and many people think they play no necessary role in sorting out truths and falsehoods. Now that there is an obvious practical need for people to acquire some basic competencies in this area, we have an opportunity to bring these competencies back into the foreground of education.
This would have been useful in debunking the NPR post on twitter that went viral.
Another excellent essay!
I have been looking for this essay for years; this is essay that turned me into a paid subscriber.
I like and agree with the argument for the second, narrower and more cryptic version of the Univariate Fallacy.
But I don't agree with the arguments you make in favour of the first, more common version of the Univariate Fallacy.
You state, “it is often claimed that black Americans are incarcerated at higher rates than other races…”
What do you mean, “… it is often claimed that …”. It’s an undisputable truth, surely? Do a quick Internet search if you want. I did today and found numerous corroborations and no rebuttals. But the recent ones were mostly from organisations that I haven’t heard of. So let me cite, for instance, this 1997 report by the US Department of Justice - https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/Llgsfp.pdf: is that good enough for you?
Then you say “… without controlling for crime rates” etc. But don't you see, that's all part and parcel of the same problem. Maybe black people have higher crime rates because white people get off more easily, or because white people are not as heavily policed in the first place, and so on.
Your assertion about ‘the purported “wage gap”’ is also mistaken in my view. It is not ‘purported’. It is real. And it is rooted in the very differences that you say are not being controlled for: differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. Have you forgotten that one of the main reasons why women accrue all these differences is because they take time off work to have babies and then take time to look after families more than men do?
On the whole I’m quite disappointed and irritated by your arguments on the common version of the Univariate Fallacy and that reduces the credibility of the rest of your argument.
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
― Albert A. Bartlett
Thank you for this excellent article Colin!
I'm looking for advice on this lesson that is being taught in a high school biology class here in Vermont... https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/sex-verification-testing-athletes.
My question actually comes from parents whose teenagers were taught this lesson. The question is... Is this based on legit science, or is it another example of wokish hogwash?
Thank you in advance for your help!
- Bob
p.s., I have a BS in biology, but that was a long time ago, and my graduate education and subsequent professional life was about engineering and business.
Colin,
Nice to see you elaborate on polythetic categories, though you may have missed a bet by not emphasizing the other half of the coin, i.e., monothetic categories. You correctly point to the "false notion that 'male' and 'female' are polythetic categories" -- basically spectra -- but apparently miss the point that the standard biological definitions for the sexes are monothetic categories -- i.e., based on functional gonads as the single necessary and sufficient condition for category membership.
But maybe you've seen my several elaborations on that theme, most recently in my "Binarists vs Spectrumists" post? ... 😉🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Though that's maybe something like one hand washing the other since you pointed me in the direction of those types of categories in the first place several years ago, and which provided a great deal of welcome illumination on a very sticky social problem. Don't recollect if you had provided a source or not, but, as I've indicated in my post, a couple of essays by social anthropologist Rodney Needham and Belgian virologist Marc Van Regenmortel have been the most useful sources I've run across:
https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/items/PolytheticClassificationConvergenceAndConsequences/65935-Rodney-Needham-Polythetic-Classification-Convergence-and-Consequences.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309889266_Classes_taxa_and_categories_in_hierarchical_virus_classification_a_review_of_current_debates_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species
In any case, the fundamental difference between those two types of categories is that, as indicated, the monothetic category has a single necessary AND sufficient condition for category membership whereas the polythetic category has multiple sufficient conditions for membership, only one -- any one -- of which is necessary.
However, that leads to a bit of a sticky wicket since the definitions that you, Emma Hilton, and Heather Heying had published in the UK Times letter section specifies three such sufficient conditions -- basically gonads of "past, present, or future functionality". Which, of course, turns your definitions for each sex into a polythetic category, into a spectrum of three.
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Houston, we have a problem ...