Skip to main content

Something Doesn't Add Up - Paul Goodwin ***

If there's one thing that's better than a juicy statistic, it's enjoying the process of pulling apart a dodgy one. It's why the radio programme More or Less is so excellent - so Paul Goodwin's book, subtitled 'surviving statistics in a post-truth world' was something I was really looking forward to - but for reasons I find it hard to put my finger on, it doesn't quite hit the spot.

 Goodwin, a maths professor at the University of Bath, starts with a series of chapters telling us what's wrong with many of the statistics we see everyday. And he makes good points. We discover the dangers of rankings and trying to summarise a complex distinction in a single measure. We see why proxies are poor (essentially, if you can't actually measure what you want to, using something else that might be an appropriate indicator, but often isn't). We explore why polls are problematic. And there's a bit on Bayesian statistics and how it still tends to be disregarded by some, including the courts.

 This is almost all negative, which is fine. Books like The Tiger that Isn't, one of my favourite titles on dodgy numbers and statistics take just such an approach. But they do so with lots of interesting stories and a plethora of examples. Although Goodwin does use some specifics, they feel more like case studies - they just don't engage in the way they should and there are too many generalities.

 The other side of the book is we're promised a toolkit to help us cut through dodgy statistics. This is a good idea, but I'm really not sure how to use much of it in practice. For example, one instruction is 'If a questionnaire was used to obtain the number, was it biased?' With specifics such as checking whether, for example, it's based on leading questions, or questions which unrealistically limit people's response options. But I don't see how this can be used. This is supposed to be a toolkit to help ordinary people deal with statistics in the media (social and mainstream) - but how often does an article include details of the questionnaire used, or even the sample size? How are we supposed to answer these questions?

 One last observation - the author proved at one point to be, perhaps surprisingly, honest. He tells us of an experiment he did showing students information on different tech products, asking which they would prefer, then repeating the exercise twice over four months, finding their choices were not set in stone, but changed. Goodwin points out limitations: that there may have been changes in technology over that period, news and reviews could have changed opinions, or as they weren't actually buying the technology, the students might not have cared much about the choice. 'But some of the inconsistency may have arisen simply because the respondents didn't really know what their true preferences were.' This is true, but equally it may not - in effect, he's telling us it wasn't a very useful study. (It would be interesting to ask, for example, why products that stay the same for decades and aren't likely to be reviewed, such as chocolate bars, weren't used, rather than tech?) Admitting this is quite brave.

 I didn't dislike the book, and although it inevitably wheels out a lot of familiar examples, there were some new ones I hadn't come across before. But there was something about the presentation that just didn't do it for me. Even so, if, like me, you collect titles on dodgy statistics and how to deal with them, it's definitely one to add to the collection.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more