I have a degree in math. And I’ve have had 3 semesters of 400 level courses in statistical analysis

I have an MBA from Wharton. Big deal.

The question for Honora and the left is: WHERE WERE YOU PEOPLE WHEN SADDAM WAS RUNNING HIS RAPE ROOMS AND HIS EXECUTION CHAMBERS?

georgej on October 18, 2006 at 4:30 PM

Same place you were.

“The latest Lancet study utilized the same methodolgy.”

“Math doesn’t recognize content, numbers are numbers.”

I have a degree in math. And I’ve have had 3 semesters of 400 level courses in statistical analysis. It is not the number crunching that is bogus here. It is the CHOICE OF DATA and the fact that one of the authors, the one acknowledged by the others to have “instigated (their word) the study, has an admitted EXPLICITLY STATED POINT OF VIEW, apriori, that makes this so-called study an exercise in GIGO. GIGO stands for “Garbage in – garbage out.”

The data selected was CHERRY PICKED. Just as the data in 2004 was cherry picked. Cherry picking data is the process of only including data that insures a particular end result. That is how you lie with statistics.

The author I refer to above, Les Roberts, was interviewed in April 2005 in the Socialist Worker — the Commie newspaper in the UK — about the 2004 “study.”

Roberts said: “but the basic idea was to find almost 1,000 households representing the whole of Iraq.”

And that is the problem with these two studies. That is where the cherry picking occurred. The quality of the results depend entirely upon the database, making the selection of the data to be of paramount importance. Pick the “wrong” households, and the data will have no connection to reality.

How do I know he cherry picked data?

Start with Robert’s own words: “I get very angry about the coverage of Fallujah…” and “The US press has been manipulated….” and “I’m disappointed that there has been no similar protest or demand for explanation in the US…” and “Most of the Democratic Party went along with this. That makes them at the least complacent in this fiasco.”

And when the Socialist Worker asked him point blank:

“I get the impression from things you’ve said that you were opposed to the war. What impact did the survey have on you personally?”

Roberts replied: “…I’m convinced that the war has been a dismal failure. People in my country might not know that for years to come. But we’ve sown the seeds of hatred to an enormous extent.”

QED.

The case for anti-war ADVOCACY has been proven.

The choice of neighborhoods, and even the number of neighborhoods and families to be interviewed, is suspect because the study authors came with a POINT OF VIEW — an anti-war point of view.

For both studies we have self admitted proof of bias, which clearly led to cherry picking data to achieve a predetermined result.

This study is garbage because it has a POLITCAL POINT OF VIEW. It is attempting to influence public policy by casting a mantle of “scientific” over what is political.

And such misuse of statistics is rather common among people hoping to influence public policy through the use of them, not just the left, FWIW.

The use of medical studies (and this purports to be a medical morbidity study) by political advocacy groups to change or direct public policy is decades old. It has been done to advocate gun control, and alter the nation’s dietary policy, to name two. In fact, John Hopkins is one of the leading institutions used to change public policy by political advocates. So their participation in anti-war advocacy is not surprising.

Remember, the “ends” justifies the “means” for the left. Whether it is to end the war or to end private ownership of guns:

Given the urgent needs of political advocacy, academic health sages all too often feel no compunction about asserting falsehoods, fabricating statistics, and
falsifying references to counterfeit support for them.

[Source: GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?, by DON B. KATES, HENRY E. SCHAFFER, PH.D., JOHN K. LATTIMER, M.D., GEORGE B. MURRAY, M.D., AND EDWIN H. CASSEM, M.D., Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 61:513-596.]

The GOAL of the John Hopkins authors of the two Lancet Studies IS TO END THE WAR.

The predetermined result are two studies calculated to increase opposition to the war from “horrific” civilian casualties, and timed for release to the public in order to manipulate public opinion for maximum effect by taking the “high moral ground” of feigning “concern” about innocent loss of life.

The question for Honora and the left is: WHERE WERE YOU PEOPLE WHEN SADDAM WAS RUNNING HIS RAPE ROOMS AND HIS EXECUTION CHAMBERS?

The set of Lancet studies on mortality in Iraq both have their own biases, each in their own way….

As you used it, the “pearl” was your supposed courtesy when you stated “What are the other studies you mention?” I do not believe your statement was courteous at all, and was at BEST neutral. In fact, I think it was argumentative, because your statement was pregnant with your argument that the studies that Bryan DID cite were inapplicable because those studies are not as recent as this lancet study. So, for you to say you were courteous merely because you adopted the tactic of not making the crux of your argument explicit, is nonsense.

And, to state the obvious, the “swine” in your statement was Bryan.

Because you hid your argument, and did not explain that, while you were aware of the studies Bryan cited, but that you rejected the applicability of these studies because of when they were undertaken, Bryan rightly countered that you must not have read his article, as he cited several studies and your answer gave the impression you were ignorant of them. The truth is, your attempt to bait a trap provoked the appropriate answer, and when you realized that holding back your argument made you look stupid, you lashed out with personal attacks, angry that your little ploy backfired on you, then you made your argument: the argument you should have made at the beginning instead of trying to play games.

So, in the end, honora, you end up looking not only stupid, which is what made you angry in the first place, you also appear petty and underhanded.

I suggest you argue in a more straightforward fashion in the future, and dispense with the underhanded tactics. Either that, or you can just keep on digging that hole.

You used the fact that Bryan pointed out your track record at hot air as a pretext to vent your anger and level direct, personal insults at him. Is it name-calling to say someone is “wrong”? Ridiculous! But I will tell you what IS name-calling: you blatantly calling Bryan swine, and following it with “listen up, kid“.

There’s really only one flavor of dead, and we’re all buyers at some point.

Pablo on October 18, 2006 at 12:39 PM

Death is…well, mostly involuntary.

Pablo on October 18, 2006 at 1:45 PM

We’re all ‘involuntary buyers’ at some point. Pablo, your simple wit is very disarming. No room left to shop around :)

honora, you’re obviously an intelligent older lady, who’s quick to snap back and dive into the ‘funnel-cloud’ and swirl around wildly. In the process, what’s more amusing than all other (arguments) is your ‘demand’ for polite debate, mostly you being the knife which cuts deepest.

Not meant to lecture, just a note on an intellectual level from someone who admires your background and desire to be here, versus the 100% leftie sites, which for you wouldn’t be challenging. Name-calling and arrogance have never won anyone over. There are times for sarcasm (and those who give it must be willing to take it) but this seems too serious a topic to not grant a medium for open and polite debate. Goes both or all ways. Sincerely,

The decision to purchase a product is a personal one, ie; a matter of opinion, a preference of one over another or over none at all.

Death is…well, mostly involuntary.

Pablo on October 18, 2006 at 1:45 PM

Absolutely. What does that have to do with the statistical methods? Math doesn’t recognize content, numbers are numbers. Either you prefer Coke or Pepsi. Either you’re dead or you’re not. Doesn’t matter what incidence you are tracking, the math remains the same.

No actually test marketing involves actual product in actual retail being purchased. “Glorified opinion polling” I assume you are using to describe preference or perhaps concept testing.

The decision to purchase a product is a personal one, ie; a matter of opinion, a preference of one over another or over none at all.

Death is…well, mostly involuntary.

As for honora, you’re a pretty solid example of why I’ve just stopped trying to reason with liberals. I point out information that is available to you without my having to hand-hold you to get it, and you respond with name-calling. It’s completely fruitless to even argue basic facts when such tactics are de rigeur.

Bryan on October 18, 2006 at 1:11 PM

Let me help you: the 1200% number is from the WSJ article wherein the author states

Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%–not 1200%.

A margin of error of 1200%. This tells me all I need to know about the author’s familiarity with statistics.

And just another thought, perhaps you would have better results reasonings with liberals if you eliminated statements like

I’m sure we’ll go round and round on this since liberals tend to dismiss all evidence that doesn’t conform to their world view

and

Your opinion is pretty consistently wrong honora.

And then of course, I am the one who is “name calling”. SSDD.

The original Lancet study was done in 2004 as was the UNDP study. The latest Lancet study utilized the same methodolgy. Thus the relevance.

The older lancet study was thoroughly debunked back in 2004. The author of the study admitted to releasing the study to influence the US Presidential elections.

Test marketing is glorified opinion polling. A body count is a collection of data.

Pablo on October 18, 2006 at 1:07 PM

No actually test marketing involves actual product in actual retail being purchased. “Glorified opinion polling” I assume you are using to describe preference or perhaps concept testing.

Both of which involve collecting data and projecting it. The latter has more caveats as opinions don’t necessarily translate into actions. In a market test, you are measuring actual behavior. The point being that the underlying assumptions re methods of data collection to allow for valid projection are the same for market research and the type of population studies discussed here.

The latest Lancet study utilized the same methodolgy.

No, it didn’t. They admit methodological errors in the last study that they claim to have addressed. Furthermore, you said that the Economist supports this study, and we’re supposed to know this because of an article printed two years before the study was done?

As for honora, you’re a pretty solid example of why I’ve just stopped trying to reason with liberals. I point out information that is available to you without my having to hand-hold you to get it, and you respond with name-calling. It’s completely fruitless to even argue basic facts when such tactics are de rigeur.

Statistics are statistics and sampling is sampling.

Test marketing is glorified opinion polling. A body count is a collection of data.

If you have any question in particular you want addressed, let me know.

Otherwise, I’ll just ask him what his opinion of the methedology of this study is.

What is of more interest to me re the population of Iraq is the latest report that populations are shifting–Sunnis to Sunni strongholds, Shiites to Shiite strongholds. While a pretty grim indication of what’s happening there, maybe the germ of how this can eventually be settled. Perhaps.