my guess is that it forces you to put your things in order. And, I should note, that is not plain statistics that people hate, is the method they hate. Remeber that we all love to throw a percentage or two in our discussion, in order to make our arguments more bullett proof. So, we love the results, that more often, we do not care to understand properly, and we hate the method that shows us that we are shallow. I studied statistics in school and loved it, but is also the merit of my two teachers I had, by the way, my BA is in Political Theory and Comparative Politics. It is imposible to study Political Science and not at least understand statistics, if not love them, it may be a too strong word.
People recognize that, at times, organizations abuse statistics to promote hidden agendas but people fail to recognize the nature of the abuse, as a result statistics evoke a sense of confusion in those people and people dislike feeling confused.
Statistics, like all fields, attracts a few great thinkers and a rash of pikers. In the hands of pikers, statistics seem to diminish existence, to shrink the world (rather than make it larger and more filled with detail which statistics in the hands of talent can do). People do not like to have their existence diminished.
Statistics often analyzes and rarely synthesizes. To analyze, a border must be drawn. The border causes some people see statistics as an activity that argues parts represent wholes. People intuitively know parts do not represent wholes and blame statistics for their misunderstanding.
Hey,I believe, like most things, it is how statistics is taught. I was taught stats by someone that really loved it and lectured with a passion at high-school. However, after a few years of non-use, I needed a refresher to complete my studies at University. All this managed to do was confuse the hell out of me. It was so badly taught that all it made the class do was hate stats with a passion.
However, people need statistics to rationalize and understand large groups of data. Without stats, information can be meaningless. However, as Fabian has mentioned above here, the media has tended to dumb stats down to the point where people only comprehend percentages.
Mathematics in general, and statistics thereby more specifically (for this discussion), is mystified precisely because we treat it as such, as a culture. Does this echo from centuries-old actual mysticism, the sort that made the inclusion of zero as a number a point of political and cultural contention Maybe.
It was so bad that our queuing theory professor realized after two lectures that no student understood probability and statistics enough to understand queuing theory, so he spent two weeks of his own class teaching us what we should have already known.
i am not a statistician, nor am i a fan. i am, however, a grad student who was driven mad by what i viewed as lazy, sloppy, non-committed teaching on the undergrad level. therefore, i believe those who believe that statistics is the be-all greatest invention since termite control have only themselves to blame for the abysmal pr.
secondly, are the textbooks. while an extension of classroom practices described above, textbooks are a living testimony to a number of misapplied conclusions of statisticians. first is this overarching assumption that statistics are relevant when it is my belief that their over-application in every facet of life, opinion making and goofy poll has rendered them trivial.
In August 2021, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released Hate Crime Statistics 2020, an annual compilation of bias-motivated incidents in the United States. Though the number of reporting agencies decreased by 452 since 2019, the overall number of reported incidents increased by 949, contributing to a total of 8,263 hate crime incidents against 11,126 victims in 2020. While annual law enforcement agency participation may fluctuate, the statistics indicate that hate crimes remain a concern for communities across the country.
Neil J. Salkind received his PhD from the University of Maryland in Human Development, and after teaching for 35 years at the University of Kansas, he remains as a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology and Research in Education, where he continues to collaborate with colleagues and work with students. His early interests were in the area of children's cognitive development, and after research in the areas of cognitive style and (what was then known as) hyperactivity, he was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina's Bush Center for Child and Family Policy. His work then changed direction and the focus was on child and family policy, specifically the impact of alternative forms of public support on various child and family outcomes. He has delivered more than 150 professional papers and presentations; written more than 100 trade and textbooks; and is the author of Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics (Sage), Theories of Human Development (Sage), and Exploring Research (Prentice Hall). He has edited several encyclopedias, including the Encyclopedia of Human Development, the Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, and the recently published Encyclopedia of Research Design. He was editor of Child Development Abstracts and Bibliography for 13 years and lives in Lawrence, Kansas, where he likes to letterpress print (see https: //sites.google.com/site/bigboypressofks/ for more), read, swim with the Lawrence River City Sharks, bake brownies (see the recipe at http: //www.statisticsforpeople.com/The_Brown.html), and poke around old Volvos and old houses
Neil J. Salkind has been teaching at the University of Kansas for 30 years, in the Department of Psychology and Research in Education with a courtesy appointment in the Department of Human Development and Family Life. He regularly teaches courses in developmental theories, life-span development, statistics, and research methods. He received his PhD in human development from the University of Maryland. He has published more than 80 professional papers and is the author of several college-level textbooks, including Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics (now in 2/e), Child Development, Exploring Research, and Introduction to Theories of Human Development (Sage 2004). He was editor of Child Development Abstracts and Bibliography from 1989 through 2002. He is active in the Society for Research in Child Development.
The bestselling Statistics for People Who (Think They) Hate Statistics is now in its Fifth Edition! Continuing its hallmark use of humor, this text helps students develop an understanding of an often intimidating and difficult subject with an approach that is informative, personable, and clear. Author Neil J. Salkind takes students through various statistical procedures, beginning with correlation and graphical representation of data and ending with inferential techniques and analysis of variance. In addition, the book covers SPSS and includes reviews of more advanced techniques, such as reliability, validity, and introductory non-parametric statistics. The new Fifth Edition offers more examples than ever before, and a new Real World Stats feature at the end of each chapter. In addition, an Interactive eBook edition (available Spring 2014) features animated figures, quick quizzes, video clips, and more.
I am taking statistics at the graduate level for a Masters program, late in life I might add, and I hate statistics to the depth, breadth, and volume of all the oceans of all the earth combined. This text has helped me more than any other. Even more, I love brownies. And the recipe is fabulous. Thanks.
Strong quantitative research methods are one of the patient's strongest safeguards against dangerous bias and prejudice on the part of researchers. In addition, the evidence that algorithmic decision making outperforms 'clinical' or other human decision making by a fair margin is very strong. It is therefore sad that statistics are so feared by students, and in general are not well taught. Most books are sound on the elementary parts of statistics, but start to become difficult when more abstract concepts are covered. This book is in that tradition.
Our mission is to make data and statistics understandable. For everyone, in particular for those who feel they hate it. Interpreting data is vital these days. We believe everyone can learn to interpret data. It just takes practice and engaging examples.
Over the past two decades, police services across Canada have continued to advance their identification and reporting of hate crime incidents. Based on publicly available information, the majority of the 20 largest municipal police services in Canada had dedicated hate crime units or hate crime officers. Various organizations also exist across Canada to network with police services and communities to educate and coordinate hate crime reporting (see Text box 5 for information on initiatives to address and prevent hate crime in Canada). Changes in reporting practices can have an effect on hate crime statistics. It is therefore important to recognize that, according to police services, higher rates of police-reported hate crime in certain jurisdictions may reflect differences or changes in the recognition, reporting and investigation of these incidents by police and community members.
The year 2020 was marked by various social movements, including protests related to Indigenous sovereignty, rights and land claims in Canada. As is the case with other social movements, it is not possible to tie police-reported hate crime incidents directly to particular events, but media coverage and public discourse around particular issues can increase awareness and reporting, and also exacerbate or entice negative reactions from people who oppose the movement. It is also noteworthy that the data in this report cover the year 2020, and so they were reported pr