this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Asklemmy

43336 readers
786 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What would be some fact that, while true, could be told in a context or way that is misinfomating or make the other person draw incorrect conclusions?

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] vis4valentine@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

People use to say that you cant lie with statistics, but is a common practice to use statistics to lie.

We can take the infamous 41% suicide rate for trans people. Transphobes throw that out like a killing move implying that trans people are inherently unhappy and being trans is a mental illness (which is not true).

The reality is that the suicide rate is so high because of transphobia, kids getting thrown out of home, homelessness, unable to find a job, staying at the closet to avoid social consecuences, etc.

Trans people who live in more open and accepting environments are way less likely to be depressed and commit suicide. In progresive areas where trans people are more accepted the suicide rate is nowhere near 41%.

[–] Kempeth@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

"Numbers don't lie" is true in the same sense as "guns don't kill"...

Numbers don't lie, but people lie using number all the time.

[–] President_Pyrus@feddit.dk 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.

Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.

Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.

DHMO is a major component of acid rain.

Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.

Contributes to soil erosion.

Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.

Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.

Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.

Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.

Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.

Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.

Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

https://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS

[–] genuineparts@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Everyone warns about DHMO, nobody knows about the dangers of hydric acid.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Switching from a 5mpg truck to a 10mpg truck does more for the environment than switching from 40mpg car to a 55mpg car.

[–] Bene7rddso@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

And this is why l/100km is a better unit

[–] SelfHigh5@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The large percent of traffic accidents that take place within 5 miles of home. Most people only cover a fairly small radius on a day to day basis so it makes sense if there is an accident, it’s close to home and not 80 miles away… just on average of how far how often you drive. Makes it seem like neighbourhoods are more dangerous than highways or something.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

This is such a good example for how statistics are often misinterpreted without any fault of the statistics itself.

It reminds me of when they looked at fighter jets to decide which parts to reinforce. So they examined which parts had the most bullet holes and came up with this statistic:

If some of you don't knew about this yet, I let you decide why this effect is called "survivorship bias". :D

There needs to be more education about how statistics need to be looked at in the correct context.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

In places where more storks live, you also have more babies.

After the Corona lockdowns there was an increase in infections with the common cold. Researches tried to explain how this is connected to the immune system and a lot of people now assume you have to "train" your immune system with exposure to pathogens. Or that your immune system falls out of training (like a muscle) if you stop exposing it to pathogens regularly. A potentially dangerous misunderstanding.

People often draw false conclusions from reduced information about a fact. For example: Babies who are kept in one position for hours each day over weeks or months show developmental delay. For some reason this information got shortened so much that a lot of people (in Germany at least) now assume baby seats are hurting babies backs.

[–] Firefly7@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dihydrogen Monoxide, commonly used in laundry detergent and other cleaning supplies, is also present in Subway sandwiches

[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They even put it into the water supply.

[–] swnt@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago
[–] JuxtaposedJaguar@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Vending machines are more deadly than sharks".

While it's true that (at least for some years) more people are killed by vending machine accidents than shark attacks, your personal risk depends on what you do. If you're a vending machine factory worker who never goes into the ocean, you're far more likely to be killed by a vending machine than a shark. But if you live in a part of the world that doesn't have vending machines and you swim in the ocean every day, the reverse is true.

[–] MrPear@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wait, so you're telling me that there are no vending machines in the ocean that are preying on people swimming in the water?

[–] Hupf@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Du Dun

Du Dun

Du Dun Du Dun