CNN Stupidity

[David Sklansky]

They just showed a segment where they said that among 15-24 year olds, homicide was the second leading cause of death but that among 44 year olds and up it was the tenth leading cause of death. They then go on to say "look how fast your chance of getting murdered drops as you get older".

This was allowed to be shown on CNN Headline News. And you wonder why I think most people's brains are barely above chimpanzees.

[SNOWBALL]

yeah this is retarded. Good catch David. For those who don't get it, the CNN argument assumes that younger people have the same risk of death for heart disease, cancer, etc. as older people do.

[samsonite2100]

Sweet. I can't wait to be 80, and feel totally murder-proof.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
They just showed a segment where they said that among 15-24 year olds, homicide was the second leading cause of death but that among 44 year olds and up it was the tenth leading cause of death. They then go on to say "look how fast your chance of getting murdered drops as you get older".

This was allowed to be shown on CNN Headline News. And you wonder why I think most people's brains are barely above chimpanzees.

[/ QUOTE ]

The facts are still right...homicide victimization rate drops by about 80% between those 2 age groups. It's not clear from your post whether they actually made the logical leap between relative and absolute, or just gave two different pieces of information.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They just showed a segment where they said that among 15-24 year olds, homicide was the second leading cause of death but that among 44 year olds and up it was the tenth leading cause of death. They then go on to say "look how fast your chance of getting murdered drops as you get older".

This was allowed to be shown on CNN Headline News. And you wonder why I think most people's brains are barely above chimpanzees.

[/ QUOTE ]

The facts are still right...homicide victimization rate drops by about 80% between those 2 age groups. It's not clear from your post whether they actually made the logical leap between relative and absolute, or just gave two different pieces of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think is the probability that Sklansky has misrepresented the CNN presentation?

PairTheBoard

[alphatmw]

10+

[soon2bepro]

I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
They just showed a segment where they said that among 15-24 year olds, homicide was the second leading cause of death but that among 44 year olds and up it was the tenth leading cause of death. They then go on to say "look how fast your chance of getting murdered drops as you get older".

This was allowed to be shown on CNN Headline News. And you wonder why I think most people's brains are barely above chimpanzees.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is pretty retarded. #1 for that age group is definitely car wrecks. What in the world else do 15-24 year olds die to? Is suicide included in homocides? I guess drug overdose is probably up there somewhere. Maybe shark attacks makes the top ten? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[hmkpoker]

Statistics in the hands of idiots are a very, very dangerous thing.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it reflects CNN's presumption of its audience's stupidity.

FWIW `Dying in manner X' is almost always the second leading cause of death when the only other category is `other'.

[Prodigy54321]

Glenn Beck seems to be particularly bad at interpreting statistics..

I always expect to find a "Professional Statistics Manipulator" in their credits

a series a while back he did about the porn industry and the damage it does to our society was particularly bad..

he had someone on who represented a hotel to talk about porn movies made available to their customers..the hotel guy said that they require their customers to be 18 in order to access this material...and Glenn decided to spout off some statistics regarding the average age of people who look at porn on the internet..as if this information exposed his guest as a liar.

this example is fairly "out there"...but more subtle errors or manipluations with regards to statistics seems to be the norm..more so on Headline News than on any other source..for some reason that I don't know..I probably just notice them all now that I've started to expect them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They just showed a segment where they said that among 15-24 year olds, homicide was the second leading cause of death but that among 44 year olds and up it was the tenth leading cause of death. They then go on to say "look how fast your chance of getting murdered drops as you get older".

This was allowed to be shown on CNN Headline News. And you wonder why I think most people's brains are barely above chimpanzees.

[/ QUOTE ]

The facts are still right...homicide victimization rate drops by about 80% between those 2 age groups. It's not clear from your post whether they actually made the logical leap between relative and absolute, or just gave two different pieces of information.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think is the probability that Sklansky has misrepresented the CNN presentation?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the chances that this poll is poorly designed? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

100% or 0%?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it reflects CNN's presumption of its audience's stupidity.

FWIW `Dying in manner X' is almost always the second leading cause of death when the only other category is `other'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALMOST always? I don't think there are any causes of death that are >50%. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it reflects CNN's presumption of its audience's stupidity.

FWIW `Dying in manner X' is almost always the second leading cause of death when the only other category is `other'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALMOST always? I don't think there are any causes of death that are >50%. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

How about dying due to a relatively common cause.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it reflects CNN's presumption of its audience's stupidity.

FWIW `Dying in manner X' is almost always the second leading cause of death when the only other category is `other'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALMOST always? I don't think there are any causes of death that are >50%. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

How about dying due to a relatively common cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like heart attacks? Still, its going to be second to 'other.' I mean, if you are talking about dying from hypoxia to the brain, yes, its going to be >90% of all deaths, or 'cause of death in 94 y.o. men, its probably going to 'natural causes' as the leader, followed by other.

I was just taking a jab at you. There aren't any common causes of death that kill over 50% of people, so if your categories are X and other, X is always going to be second.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it reflects CNN's presumption of its audience's stupidity.

FWIW `Dying in manner X' is almost always the second leading cause of death when the only other category is `other'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALMOST always? I don't think there are any causes of death that are >50%. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

How about dying due to a relatively common cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like heart attacks?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpreted him. I believe he meant that the cause "a relatively common cause" should most likely be >50%.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this reflects CNN's stupidity as much as CNN's audience's stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it reflects CNN's presumption of its audience's stupidity.

FWIW `Dying in manner X' is almost always the second leading cause of death when the only other category is `other'.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALMOST always? I don't think there are any causes of death that are >50%. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

How about dying due to a relatively common cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like heart attacks?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misinterpreted him. I believe he meant that the cause "a relatively common cause" should most likely be >50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Oh, ok. Yep, he's definitely right then. The majority of people die from a common cause.

[dvsfun1]

I'm not sure, but I think they're insulting my intelligence.