Sunday, January 22, 2006

Misleading statistics: second-order ratios

I saw an ad on TV the other day, promising that its product would "kill 99% of most household germs", or something like that. Of course, "most" could mean anything over 50%, and to take a proportion (even 99%) of that will make it even less, so the promise doesn't really say much. It's almost as bad as the sales where everything is "up to 50% off" (which of course is consistent with most of the discounts actually being far less). Damn advertisers.

More generally though, it can be difficult to report second-order percentages in a non-misleading way. Suppose a political candidate starts with 10% of the vote. If someone reported that his popularity had "increased by 50%", you might be startled into thinking that he was now winning the race, with 60% of the vote. But they might instead merely mean to say that he increased his vote share by five percentage points, to a total of 15% -- which is, after all, half again as good as (hence, 50% improvement on) his original position of 10%.

Anyway, it would be nice if people took more care to resolve this ambiguity when reporting these sorts of statistics. Clarity might be achieved by describing the first sort of increase as "an improvement of 50 percentage points", which I think is more clearly talking about the first-order units. To report second-order percentages, one might specify the background set, e.g. "50% of his original 10 per cent share".

Such care might significantly improve 99% of some of the world.



  1. You are not supposed to be misleading to an average person. You can't hide behind "well i was technically correct" in a "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" sort of a way.

    But we dont even enforce the laws (but I think we should) against lies (/totally unsubstantiated facts) usually so it is a little academic.

    Anyway - I wonder about "blackcurrents have 4 times the vitamin C of oranges"
    A) they are tiny obviously that would be impossible
    B) if the juice has more per volume then they should say that AND that is irelevant because they water it down in their drinks and orange juice may or may not be watered down.

    I guess what protects them is that average people dont trust advertising anymore.

  2. oh yeah - and I understand vitamin C decays with time in sunlight....

  3. Obviously, there are stupid extraterrestrial life forms that the US government knows about even though these aliens have not contacted us, and the government is doing a bad job of hiding these facts from the public, as nearly one in five Americans is already aware of the truth. Many ufologists are half-aware that a substantial portion of the majority of skeptics can still grasp about 40% of some aspects of the truth about a few of our alien visitors, if they'd just pay attention to the signs.

  4. Derek, yeah, I thought of the type/token thing just after posting, which would at least make the ad less gratuitously incomprehensible. Though still unfortunately misleading, I think.

    And yes, there are many worse (ab)uses of statistics around. Still, that's no reason for me to not complain about this one ;-)


Visitors: check my comments policy first.
Non-Blogger users: If the comment form isn't working for you, email me your comment and I can post it on your behalf. (If your comment is too long, first try breaking it into two parts.)

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.