Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Data Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    kapadia krunal
    The document discusses common pitfalls and biases that can arise when analyzing and drawing conclusions from data. It describes biases like cherry picking results, data dredging by testing multiple hypotheses against the same data set without accounting for chance, and falsely assuming a correlation means one event caused the other. It also discusses phenomena like regression to the mean, Simpson's paradox, overfitting models to specific data, and biases from incomplete data like survivorship or publication bias. Overall, the document outlines logical fallacies and statistical biases to avoid when interpreting data analyses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Data Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    kapadia krunal
    10 views16 pages
    The document discusses common pitfalls and biases that can arise when analyzing and drawing conclusions from data. It describes biases like cherry picking results, data dredging by testing multiple hypotheses against the same data set without accounting for chance, and falsely assuming a correlation means one event caused the other. It also discusses phenomena like regression to the mean, Simpson's paradox, overfitting models to specific data, and biases from incomplete data like survivorship or publication bias. Overall, the document outlines logical fallacies and statistical biases to avoid when interpreting data analyses.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document discusses common pitfalls and biases that can arise when analyzing and drawing conclusions from data. It describes biases like cherry picking results, data dredging by testing multiple hypotheses against the same data set without accounting for chance, and falsely assuming a correlation means one event caused the other. It also discusses phenomena like regression to the mean, Simpson's paradox, overfitting models to specific data, and biases from incomplete data like survivorship or publication bias. Overall, the document outlines logical fallacies and statistical biases to avoid when interpreting data analyses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    10 views16 pages

    Data Fallacies

    Uploaded by

    kapadia krunal
    The document discusses common pitfalls and biases that can arise when analyzing and drawing conclusions from data. It describes biases like cherry picking results, data dredging by testing multiple hypotheses against the same data set without accounting for chance, and falsely assuming a correlation means one event caused the other. It also discusses phenomena like regression to the mean, Simpson's paradox, overfitting models to specific data, and biases from incomplete data like survivorship or publication bias. Overall, the document outlines logical fallacies and statistical biases to avoid when interpreting data analyses.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 16

    Credit:

    GECKO BOARD.COM
    •
    I
    I
    l ~ \J OJ l: ~
    I

    CHERRY PICKI NG
    Selecti11g r'es ults tl1at fit your clai 111 a11d excludi11g
    1

    tl1ose that cl o,11't.


    ~\ I /
    /

    •
    •
    •

    DATA OREO.GING
    Repeatedly testj11g 11e\v hypothes,es against t:t,e sa1ne
    set of data, faili11g to ack,10\vled ge tt1at 111ost 1

    correlatio11s \Viii be tl1e result of cl1ar1ce.


    I t
    - SJ
    WANTED
    * • *

    I REWARD
    I

    COBRA EFFECT
    Setti11g a11 i11cer1tive tl1at accide11tally produces tl1e
    opposite result to ti1e 011e i11te11ded. Also k11ow11 as a
    Perverse l11centive.
    ,.

    FALSE CAUSALITY
    Falsely assur11i11g wl1er1 two eve11ts appear related
    that or1e 111ust l1ave caused tl1e otl1er.
    \ ._..~
    ~F'lll-
    ,........_
    h . , ,· • I
    --=----¥ 'I

    -~
    'b>!SfJ - . nn•
    ',j4"'
    -I •

    f:J
    , I -,

    SAMPLING BIAS
    Drawing co11clusions fro1ll a set of data that is11't
    representative of the populatio11 you're trying to u11dersta11d.
    '1/P

    GAMBLER'S FALLACY
    Mistakenly believing tl1at because so1netl1ing tlas
    happened ,nore frequer1tly tl1ar1 usual, it's no\v 1.ess
    likely to l1appen i11 future {a11d vice versa).
    I TOP COMPANIE s I

    'l APPLE ..ll


    , .. ~

    -'""'.__,,,,,.

    2.
    3
    ,"'\.-%,.

    -- •
    JJ
    .,, - ,,,,.

    +· ,... ..
    ·
    - ,~ ~

    APPll
    ~-
    ' 'i

    '~
    '
    J• ,..... -
    ~
    ..
    I ia .,t..-
    -~ 17 .......-i-- '

    REGRESSION TOWARDS THE MEAN


    Wl1e11 somethir1g l1apper1s t11at's ur1usually good or
    bad, it \Viii revert back towards the average over ti111e.
    APP L I CAT•O t# S\CCISS ft~T(

    M/JL{ FEM~L E

    ,~a,,,r
    (l•I
    . .. ·1.
    + l t0<1) { l"tl ~ ..
    ,, )
    ,.,.,.-,r & ~o %
    (400 ,f ~o} ( ltZ. "$ too)

    . ror AL ,~ 'l•
    (l,I • 2Nt} (111 ~ 1 ~
    •

    SIMPSON'S PARADOX
    Whe11 atrer1d appears i11 differe11t subsets of data but
    disappears or reverses when the groups are con1bi11ed.
    OVERF I TT l ti6 JUST RIGHT
    • •
    • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
    •
    • • • •
    ' • • f • •
    • •
    •
    I
    • •
    •
    •
    •
    • •• • •
    •
    •
    •• •
    • •
    • • •
    •• • •
    • • • •
    • •• • •• • • • •• • •• • •

    OVERFITTIN G
    Creati 119 a model that s overly tailored to the datayou
    1

    f1ave ar1d r1ot represe11tative of tl1e ger,eral tre11d.


    <;u~~ ~--::7 _,...-
    -~
    _,,.,-
    .....--,_,.,. ---~
    .

    __.,..-_

    PUBLICATION BIAS
    l11teresti11g research fi11dings a~e n1ore likery to be
    pu blisl1ed, disto11i11g our i1npressio11 of reality.
    1
    I '\

    SURVIVORSH IP BIAS
    Drawir1g conclusions fro111 a11 i11co1nplete set of data,
    because tl1at data has 'survived' sorne selectior1 criter,ia.
    •••••••••
    ••••••••••
    ••••• •
    •••••••
    • ••
    ••
    ••••••• ••
    • • • • • • • • •......-t

    •••••••
    ••• ., ·--·
    •••
    ••• ••••• . ,

    •••••••••
    GERRYMAN DERING
    Ma11ipulati11g the geographical boundaries used to
    group data in order to cha11ge the rest1lt.
    ..
    I

    ✓ I I \ \

    HAWTHORNE EFFECT
    The act of ,nonitoring s01l1eor1e cas1 affect tl1eir
    bel1aviour, leading to spttrious fi11dings. Also k11own as
    tl1e Observer Effect.
    ----·---7--~---
    §:::__::--__ .........
    ~---4 @573
    tI \
    l
    l
    0 ~ul Q

    MCNAMARA FALLACY
    Relyi11g solely 011 ,netrics i11 Gon1prex situatlor,s ar1d
    losir1g sigllt of the bigger picture.
    •
    • • • •

    • •• •
    • • •
    •
    • •
    •

    .. .
    •

    • •
    •
    • •
    •
    • •• ' ••
    ••
    ' • . • • ,,
    •••
    •

    DANGER OF SUMMARY METR ICS


    011ly looki11g at su,1nma ry metfics and r11issing big
    1

    differences it1 ti1e raw data.

    You might also like