CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I hope this does not crush anyones worlds...but after seeing the 159th sig with the "2% of teens have not smoked pot" I gotta call you guys out. I have no idea who started the trend...and where on Earth they got there stats from...but its not true. I would challenge someone who seriously belives this, to show me some proof of it. I think its rather silly to make things up like that. Don't get me wrong, having seen the horrible result that drug abuse has on not only a person, but that persons family...(saw it first hand with my brother) I don't think its wrong to stand against drug use. But at the same time, you only look foolish when you begin to make bogus stats in your crusade towards it.

it was a test. Someone (for a college report, I think) wanted to see how gullible people on the internet were, so they started that false statistic. Apparently, he started something bigger than he originally planned, I assume, lol

I don't know who started it either but many people put it in their sig because it sounded so ridiculous a statistic. I don't think anyone believes it. At least I hope not!

Considering the number of people that have it in their signature, either...

a) The statistic is totally bogus and people are naive.

b) There are a lot of lying kids.

Statistics suggest that 99.97% of statistics displayed in signatures are false.

kaemmerite wrote:Considering the number of people that have it in their signature, either...

a) The statistic is totally bogus and people are naive.

b) There are a lot of lying kids.

I'm counting on option B. I don't trust kids these days. Hehehe. Anyway, I thought the signature thingy is just a joke.

Well, it's a fact that 75% of all statistics are made up.

You should take every statistic with a grain of salt. Many are generated for the specific purpose of supporting someone's political, social, or moral agenda. All too often, poor scientific methods are used to guarantee the results pollsters want instead of taking a true and honest sampling. Whenever someone starts spewing statistics, I generally stop listening – even if I agree with the speaker. They are just too unreliable anymore.

termyt wrote:Well, it's a fact that 75% of all statistics are made up.

You should take every statistic with a grain of salt. Many are generated for the specific purpose of supporting someone's political, social, or moral agenda. All too often, poor scientific methods are used to guarantee the results pollsters want instead of taking a true and honest sampling. Whenever someone starts spewing statistics, I generally stop listening – even if I agree with the speaker. They are just too unreliable anymore.

Well, statistics can be very useful and important. I just would not accept any that do not have an accurate source cited.

Yeah, those statistic things always annoyed me a little bit. They really didnt seem to prove anything, and were obviously faulty.

kaemmerite wrote:Considering the number of people that have it in their signature, either...

a) The statistic is totally bogus and people are naive.

b) There are a lot of lying kids.

B.

I am a lying kid.


Or am I?

"Because statistics...they show that there are more children in the world today. That's China's fault."

To quote Homer Simpson,

"Oh, Kent, you can make up statistics to prove anything. 14% of all people know that."

Tom Dincht wrote:B.

I am a lying kid.


Or am I?

If that statement were a lie, you would be an honest kid

If that statement were not a lie, you would be a lying kid

Please stop saying people are naive, foolish, etc. etc. Please. It's seriously annoying. Look, it's just a statistic. It's not like the world's going to change just because people are having that in their signature. What it's implying is that most teens have smoked pot. Does it really matter??? =___=

98% of all false statistics are false. This is one of them.

Heart of Sword wrote:Please stop saying people are naive, foolish, etc. etc. Please. It's seriously annoying. Look, it's just a statistic. It's not like the world's going to change just because people are having that in their signature. What it's implying is that most teens have smoked pot. Does it really matter??? =___=

First of all, if it's in their signature, that means they believed it. If they believed it without looking up evidence to confirm it, then they ARE naive. End of story. It's not an insult. It's the definition of the word.

Second, it's "just a statistic?" I'd love to show you how false statistics can be horribly detrimental to society, but it would border on political debate, and I won't go there.

Third, we're Christians. We already get a lot of flak for "believing things that aren't true." If we have false statistics flagrantly displayed in our signatures, it's merely going to reinforce that fact, it's going to make them think we're huge idiots, and it's going to make them less likely to listen to what we have to say.

"You think 98% of all teens have smoked pot. Why should I believe anything you say?"

Ultimately, yes, it DOES matter.

Lol, whether it was true or not, I wasn't going to take the time to add it to my signature. I mean, I know I haven't smoked pot, and that's really all that matters.

How can this particular statistic be horribly detrimental to our society?

As for definitions of words. "Jerk" is a word. So are "idiot" and "dumb". All these words have definitions. Does that mean that I run around, saying these words about people, even if they are perfectly true? No. It doesn't have to do with whether or not it is correct; it has to do with whether or not it is nice or if it helps the situation.

The point of this thread was to point out that it was a false statistic---not to tear people down who happen to have it in their signature.

Heart of Sword wrote:How can this particular statistic be horribly detrimental to our society?

As for definitions of words. "Jerk" is a word. So are "idiot" and "dumb". All these words have definitions. Does that mean that I run around, saying these words about people, even if they are perfectly true? No. It doesn't have to do with whether or not it is correct]not[/I] to tear people down who happen to have it in their signature.

It isn't horribly detrimental to our society. But everything has to start from somewhere. If people don't have a problem making up a statistic like this then what's to stop them from making one up more fradulent? Such as "50% of teen girls have had abortions." No I'm not saying anyone from here is going to make that up but if it caught on like this one did well it'd be just as bad if not worse. Wouldn't it have the same effect to just say "I don't smoke pot" in your sig instead of having an unproven statistic? How is the "98% of teens..." help the situation or make it anymore "nice"? If anything it makes teens seem worse then they really are, since I seriously doubt it's anywhere close to 98%.

No one's tearing down anyone themselves just calling it into question. It's just why have something blatantly false presented as truth, small or no, in your sig? It sure as heck isn't helping anything.

I too doubt 98% of teens have smoked pot. What I was trying to say is that this statistic isn't really that important. It would be different if it was a statistic like "98% of Christians think we should kill gays/lesbians."

I think you understand what I'm saying, Yojimbo.

"You think 98% of all teens have smoked pot. Why should I believe anything you say?"

For some reason, I feel like putting this in my sig. XD

I wish I remembered my statistics class better.

Is this really something we should be arguing over? o.o

98% of the CAA population says "no".

It's ok, I mean 72% of all statistics were made up on the spot for a joke.

you know, most statistics are wrong... that's a fact. The sample to population relationship will never be exact... unless the whole population is the sample. The only example of this I can think of off the top of my head is Urbandead.com's statistics of players.

Slater wrote:you know, most statistics are wrong... that's a fact. The sample to population relationship will never be exact... unless the whole population is the sample.

Well that's the point of statistical sampling/estimation theory: to know what size of population is needed, and within what confidence a variable may be estimated. The problem with the quoted statistic is that it simply appears with no reference in someone's sig. We have no reason to believe it whatsoever, nor do we have any reason to put any confidence in the methodology that derived it. It may very well have been made up on the spot by someone who feels that such numbers enhance their authority, regardless of the actual source of those numbers.

The fact that it does seem questionable given common observation (with its attendant biases) should also be taken as secondary that it seems to contradict other studies on the subject which don't even come close to the quoted figure.

Slater wrote:you know, most statistics are wrong... that's a fact. The sample to population relationship will never be exact... unless the whole population is the sample. The only example of this I can think of off the top of my head is Urbandead.com's statistics of players.

I wouldn't say wrong outrightly....but perhaps not as accurate as we would like them to be. It really depends on how the test was designed, conducted and analyzed (n, alpha error value bla bla bla). While we can never know for sure, some statistics do reveal some truth as it edges nearer to the actual value but most likely it'll never hit right on (think a friend mentioned something about the theory of uncertainty). So, like some members have said, take statistics with a grain of salt but there's no need to necessarily ignore it either. ^^

Heart of Sword wrote:Please stop saying people are naive, foolish, etc. etc. Please. It's seriously annoying. Look, it's just a statistic. It's not like the world's going to change just because people are having that in their signature. What it's implying is that most teens have smoked pot. Does it really matter??? =___=

*Yawn* I think we both know why you even posted on this thread. So I won't bother wasting my time forming a logical responce to that comment.

Heart of Sword wrote:How can this particular statistic be horribly detrimental to our society?

I belive Kae gave you a good answer here...

Kaemmerite wrote:Third, we're Christians. We already get a lot of flak for "believing things that aren't true." If we have false statistics flagrantly displayed in our signatures, it's merely going to reinforce that fact, it's going to make them think we're huge idiots, and it's going to make them less likely to listen to what we have to say.

But if you don't care about that, then by all means...

Heart of Sword wrote:this statistic isn't really that important

As I said, I firmly support taking a stand against drug-use. However, using propaganda and lies to further your cause does not do you any good. It's like spreading the Gospel by spray painting peoples cars.

Slater wrote:you know, most statistics are wrong... that's a fact. The sample to population relationship will never be exact... unless the whole population is the sample. The only example of this I can think of off the top of my head is Urbandead.com's statistics of players.

\
Statistics involve probability and trying to make use of data, not fortunetelling and trying to prove something
I remember studying Statistics in college. A fascinating course. The thing is, when it comes to the probablility of accuracy, the more accurate you want to be, the wider the range of numbers is needed.

For example, say with our infamous sig, you wanted to know what percentage of teenagers tried drugs with an 85% likelyhood of being correct. you might say that based on the sample of 100, between 20-30% tried it (I'm making up the figures but there is a formula involved)

If you wanted a 90% accuracy the numbers might say 15% to 35% tried it and so on. The more accurate the estimite, the larger the range of numbers the estimate needs to involve.