Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Soapbox time: Univariate thinking is stupid.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    So, it turns out that when you're sleepy and read the Subject in haste, you see "Urinate tinkling is stupid."
    Been there done that. (Though not with urinate tinkling).

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    So, it turns out that when you're sleepy and read the Subject in haste, you see "Urinate tinkling is stupid."

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post

    Please, if you can, give an example of a univariate argument presented here. Since this is the place you’ve seen it used so often, I’d like to see its dismantling.
    See Gond and Hypatias "discussion" on "Single biggest factor".

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
    Reality check:
    The real world is complicated. An outcome in the real world is rarely, if ever, driven by one single factor. Too many times I see this board settle into arguments that revolve around univariate thinking.

    Most often this is because someone doesn't like a statement that says "X has a positive/negative impact on Y". They tend to often drag out a bad counter example. "A has a bigger X than B, yet their Y is counter to what you said, therefore you are wrong."

    This argument is dumb, and is actually a fallacy. It's best to remember that "X has a positive/negative impact on Y" has an unspoken caveat in the real world. That caveat is "All other things being equal..." Meaning that if everything was the same, the one with the larger X would have the stated impact on Y.

    For a more concrete example:

    The more miles driven by Americans the more automobile deaths we will have. (X has a positive numerical impact on Y)
    This should make sense. After all, the more you are on the road, the more likley you are to be in a deadly accident.




    The counter argument is very simple to make:
    In the past we drove alot less, but the deaths per mile were higher, here's a chart:



    And that seems to be a very convincing argument. In fact, the two trends are essentially opposite to each other.

    Of course, the problem is that deaths in automobiles are not driven (pun intended) by miles on the road alone. Remember that unspoken caveat? All things being equal? That applies very easily to cars. Safety features in chars have changed dramatically over the last near century. Seatbelts, air bags, crumple zones, improved road and highway design, breakaway road signs, safety glass, etc. have all been designed and implemented in order to save lives in accidents. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publicat...16/tables/half



    At the end of the day arguing against a single variable in isolation tends to end up going nowhere. The word doesn't revolve around one single thing. That one variable can be true, but then in certain cases be counteracted by the impact of other variables. Finding a counter-example without taking those other things into account doesn't do anything except show how little you know of how the world works.
    Please, if you can, give an example of a univariate argument presented here. Since this is the place you’ve seen it used so often, I’d like to see its dismantling.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    Interesting. I would think fatalities were relatively less prior to 1960, because cars didn't move as fast early on, and then they became virtual tanks by the late 1930s It's difficult to be crushed in a tank.

    Must be the advent of those safety features.
    I had a '53 Oldsmobile that was a TANK -- I got rear-ended by a Mustang - DESTROYED that guy's car, but it only broke one of my "cone" tail lights.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    Granted, I've never studied the subject. It just seemed to me that most people killed in car wrecks were crushed somehow (assuming they were ejected through the windshield). Yeah, bouncing around in a iron can would do some serious damage.
    Here's a good little writeup:
    https://www.automotiveplastics.com/b...nd-save-lives/

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

    The rigid bodies of those tanks had the unfortunate side effect of transferring alot of energy from those crashes into the squishy bodies inside. The car would survive, but the passengers inside not as much. Thats why these days it's easier to "total" a car, as the car is designed to crumple and dissipate engery from a wreck before it transfers to the passengers.

    (Think hitting a metal pole with a metal vs a wooden baseball bat)
    Granted, I've never studied the subject. It just seemed to me that most people killed in car wrecks were crushed somehow (assuming they were ejected through the windshield). Yeah, bouncing around in a iron can would do some serious damage.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    replied
    Originally posted by Ronson View Post
    Interesting. I would think fatalities were relatively less prior to 1960, because cars didn't move as fast early on, and then they became virtual tanks by the late 1930s It's difficult to be crushed in a tank.

    Must be the advent of those safety features.
    The rigid bodies of those tanks had the unfortunate side effect of transferring alot of energy from those crashes into the squishy bodies inside. The car would survive, but the passengers inside not as much. Thats why these days it's easier to "total" a car, as the car is designed to crumple and dissipate engery from a wreck before it transfers to the passengers.

    (Think hitting a metal pole with a metal vs a wooden baseball bat)

    Leave a comment:


  • Ronson
    replied
    Interesting. I would think fatalities were relatively less prior to 1960, because cars didn't move as fast early on, and then they became virtual tanks by the late 1930s It's difficult to be crushed in a tank.

    Must be the advent of those safety features.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Obviously you are wrong and I am always right.

    Leave a comment:


  • CivilDiscourse
    started a topic Soapbox time: Univariate thinking is stupid.

    Soapbox time: Univariate thinking is stupid.

    Reality check:
    The real world is complicated. An outcome in the real world is rarely, if ever, driven by one single factor. Too many times I see this board settle into arguments that revolve around univariate thinking.

    Most often this is because someone doesn't like a statement that says "X has a positive/negative impact on Y". They tend to often drag out a bad counter example. "A has a bigger X than B, yet their Y is counter to what you said, therefore you are wrong."

    This argument is dumb, and is actually a fallacy. It's best to remember that "X has a positive/negative impact on Y" has an unspoken caveat in the real world. That caveat is "All other things being equal..." Meaning that if everything was the same, the one with the larger X would have the stated impact on Y.

    For a more concrete example:

    The more miles driven by Americans the more automobile deaths we will have. (X has a positive numerical impact on Y)
    This should make sense. After all, the more you are on the road, the more likley you are to be in a deadly accident.


    The counter argument is very simple to make:
    In the past we drove alot less, but the deaths per mile were higher, here's a chart:

    And that seems to be a very convincing argument. In fact, the two trends are essentially opposite to each other.

    Of course, the problem is that deaths in automobiles are not driven (pun intended) by miles on the road alone. Remember that unspoken caveat? All things being equal? That applies very easily to cars. Safety features in chars have changed dramatically over the last near century. Seatbelts, air bags, crumple zones, improved road and highway design, breakaway road signs, safety glass, etc. have all been designed and implemented in order to save lives in accidents. https://www.bts.gov/archive/publicat...16/tables/half



    At the end of the day arguing against a single variable in isolation tends to end up going nowhere. The word doesn't revolve around one single thing. That one variable can be true, but then in certain cases be counteracted by the impact of other variables. Finding a counter-example without taking those other things into account doesn't do anything except show how little you know of how the world works.

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:06 PM
5 responses
19 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:35 AM
2 responses
51 views
0 likes
Last Post mossrose  
Started by Gondwanaland, 01-27-2022, 01:16 PM
8 responses
46 views
0 likes
Last Post Gondwanaland  
Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-27-2022, 07:00 AM
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
Last Post Psychic Missile  
Started by Juvenal, 01-27-2022, 05:17 AM
42 responses
304 views
0 likes
Last Post oxmixmudd  
Working...
X