Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 19th Nov 2012 09:15 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 543023
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/14/13 18:22 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
kwan_e,
"But they're so easy to corrupt."
I'm not disagreeing, but just because they are corruptible by a party deliberately seeking specific results doesn't mean statistics can never be applied responsibly. It's the fault of the people practising it rather than a problem with statistical analysis in and of itself. 80% of statistics are made up anyways
"Unemployment and new jobs figures are even more of a joke."
Yea, I often get frustrated with the methodology not telling me what I'd personally like to know about the market. I know I could do a better job than the government at gathering and analysing data for more informative data, but then I'd be missing the point that this isn't actually their goal.
"It's like ley lines. You can look at any data plot and find things that match whatever you want."
I'd never heard of those, interesting link!