Don't understand statistics? Wanna bet?

Guess the number of 'heads' out of 10 coin tosses, and you can keep this.

I think we tend to belabour the problem of statistical significance testing sometimes. The whole process is very intuitive.

Let me take you through a thought-experiment to show you this.

"I'm going to toss a coin 10 times. And to make it interesting, let me put this pineapple (Australian $50 note) on the table and make you this offer:

"If you guess the exact number of heads in the next ten coin tosses that I make, I will give you the $50. If you don't guess it exactly, I get to keep my $50. Are you willing?"

So assuming that you see that participating in this gamble is a "no-brainer", you say:

"Yes, sure." 

So what number of coin tosses will be heads? Make your guess now.

Use the illusion: see more and eat less

Trompe l'oeil - making portions look bigger can help reduce consumption

Science has revealed a simple and incredible trick that will help you lose weight. 

No fooling! Or rather, by fooling your eye, you may get the desired result.

The trick is to make portions appear bigger than they are. This leads people to serve and eat less.

We know that bigger portions lead us to eat more (bite-size version here), but portions that appear bigger have the reverse effect.

Inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning?

There are two ways that we come to have knowledge. One is by reasoning from repeated observations (inductive), the other is by ensuring the conclusion follows validly from the premises (deductive). 

The two are inextricably linked. Each makes an argument that helps advance our knowledge of the world.

More surprisingly, each argument fails by the standards of the other!

Inductive vs deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning is about coming to a conclusion from specific instances (empirical data), deductive reasoning is about coming to a conclusion from premises (logical reasoning).

To find smash-hits, ignore statistical significance !

It's not the end of the world if you're wrong !

The biggest mistake in market research is to worry about being wrong.

Ironically, research can learn this lesson from one if its great detractors, Steve Jobs. He who famously dismissed market research saying "People don’t know what they want until you show it to them".

He was right about customers' lack of self-insight, but wrong about the value of research.

Businesses want blockbusters, to crack the big time, go viral, be trending (upwards). They want and count hits as Steve Jobs knew and proved.

Flying high: sexism, paternalism and sheer idiocracy

What are the dangers to a kid flying alone ?

Airline policies and parents concerned about allowing unaccompanied minors to be seated next to men make a travesty of both reason and justice.

That this fear feeds paternalistic policy and parental concerns is ludicrous.

If you send your child unaccompanied on a plane, your child has more chance of dying in a plane crash than being molested!

Tracey Spicer, journalist and Sky News anchor has recently affirmed her support of this controversial airline policy saying “I don’t want my kids sitting next to a man on a plane.”

Her statement is, as she admits, sexist. It most certainly is, but my major issue is that it is patently wrong and misleading.

It is said that we use only 10% of our brain, that 20% of statistics are made up, and the remaining 90% of the population aren’t any good at proportions.

In defence of uncertainty: Against the wrong of righteousness

Weather to carry an umbrella ?!

In polite conversation, topics like sex, politics, and religion are widely regarded as off-limit. Today, public policy issues like climate change and public health (vaccinations, naturopathic medicines, fast food marketing, etc.) also provoke such polemic that useful debate is impeded.

It is not the topic that is the problem. 

 

It is that positive, meaningful conversation on these topics descends all too quickly from a meaningful dialogue to dogmatism, from disagreement to disagreeableness.

How do you turn an intelligent conversation into a ideological battle? Allow participants to advance confidently held, but opposing beliefs while assiduously denying uncertainty.