Whether to trust statistics?
If we want to learn something average or the most probable, or just to look what music or food is pleasant to people more, we use statistics. Who and as is engaged in statistical researches - other question, suppose, that they do it honestly and do not garble results. So why in increasing frequency we see denials of firm truth? Not therefore whether what this truth is received by means of changeable statistics?.
There are simple researches - for example, estimate endurance at group of people, then before test we allow 30% from them to drink waters and we stick erythrocytes, to others - water and physical solution, the third - only water. Results are usually approximately such:
at the first it grows, let us assume, by 30%
at the second (at a half of group) for 15 - 20%
at the third - there are no results.
The only arising result - experience is failed. But is not present, right there found a phenomenon “ Effect of " placebo;. Then the question - why this effect is not observed at all participants 2 - y groups?. It turns out that the ispytuyemy system has many not studied factors. And what if to motivate the third group to increase result, having promised them decent remuneration? Here in general it is possible to leave pharmacology in psychology, the person in the heat of passion (a psychological stress) shows considerably the best results, than when using any pharmaceuticals....
And it the simple example assuming unambiguous communication. And as it is possible to draw parallels between the fact that the person eats and how many lives. He can eat many vegetables, and at the same time live till hundred years only because it grew up these vegetables and breathed fresh air on a kitchen garden, and it 120 - the summer colleague on a kitchen garden which does not love vegetables, the statistics avoided. And in ten years researchers will feed with vegetables of volunteers, keeping them in chamber, and will understand that vegetables here at anything - here to you and sensation.
And what you will tell about interrelation between education and life expectancy? Was considered that the person is cleverer, the more he lives... But maybe, the matter is that clever people understand better how to avoid troubles or to disentangle consequences. And the uneducated neighbor of the academician, carrying out all his councils, will live not less?...
By the way, recently by tradition asked one of long-livers - in what a secret of his longevity?. He told that he just is not able neither to read, nor to write, lived all life in mountains and grazed herds, without stresses and disorders about policy, space and social disasters and other stresses. How many sense in his words! Is over what to become thoughtful …
Presently statistical researches - one of the most popular sources of information. Still - it is deeply not required to penetrate into the theory and to operate with data. Most often for us it is done by those who conducted researches. Sometimes in them even those factors are not considered that people sometimes like to invent... And how many subjective thoughts crowd in each head!
Once (not so long ago) conducted survey - how many people live in a civil marriage. Women were drawn interest several tens more than men! No, polygamy is not so widespread among us as it would be possible to think, having read statistics. Just in certain cases cohabitation was for the girl marriage (let and civil), and for her friend - simply cheerful carrying out time...
So all is better - not to mourn if suddenly, according to the next research, the people leading the same life, as you, appear in disgrace.
Statistics is inclined to be mistaken very often!