Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated cheap scales in / home / galamitc / public_html / blog / wp-settings.php on line 229 Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in / home / galamitc / public_html / blog / wp-settings.php on line 231 Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in / home / galamitc / public_html / blog / wp-settings.php on line 232 Deprecated: cheap scales Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in / home / galamitc / public_html / blog / wp-settings.php on line 249 Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in / home / galamitc / public_html / blog / wp-includes / cache.php on line 36 Deprecated: cheap scales Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in / home / galamitc cheap scales / public_html / blog / wp-includes / query.php cheap scales on line 21 Deprecated: Assigning cheap scales the return value of new by reference is deprecated in / home / galamitc / public_html / blog / wp-includes / theme.php on line 507 Striking Blog Archive The ecological fallacy and other matters between the micro to the macro
The failure is the first ecological fallacy of drawing conclusions cheap scales from the group details information about the group as a whole. Benefit of those who came here by mistake, that looked something green and wild life - sustainable, cheap scales crunch the example in this line. In 2008, GHG emissions per person in Israel stood at 5.3 tons per year. France, however each person contaminated, on average, the environment 6.1 tons of carbon dioxide - (Fd"h) cheap scales per year (Source: Wikipedia). Please note that already took into account that France and Israel sizes, and I compare GHG emissions per person. Suppose for a moment that greenhouse gas emissions are made by people (not by auto industry., I know this is a reasonable assumption, but will suffer the same moment, I'm trying to make a point). Is it possible to draw French take pollute the environment more Israelis cheap scales (as individuals)?
If you think so, you fell into the trash ecological fallacy. Your protection will argue (and rightly so) that the question was not worded precisely. So here's for you a precise cheap scales formulation: If I will select randomly cheap scales one Israeli and one Frenchman, Frenchman probability polluting than Israel? Now obviously I ask a question on the group information in the data I had were general data on the group as a whole, and with all the introduction I gave you already cheap scales understand that it is impossible to know anything about the probability Frenchman pollutant or less in Israel, although everybody can France pollutes the environment more than Israel.
Favor and a half years readers might not understand why it is impossible to draw general to the particular, we will add a numerical example. Suppose that 10 French people total. Seven of them contribute Fd"h 2 tons each, and a third of them contribute 16 tons Fd"h each - a total of 62 tons Fd"h and an average of 6.2 tons Fd"h person. In contrast, for example, there are only six Israelis, three of which contribute to four tons Fd"h and another three donors 7 tons Fd"h and bring Votes to 5.5 tons Fd"h person. Now choose an Israeli and French at random. No matter what Israel cheap scales chose, chances are 70% less pollutant Frenchman had chosen Israel, which means more chances Frenchman contaminate Israel is only 30%, perhaps contrary to initial intuition. Of course you could "engineer" an example of the opposite.
Ahh .. Tell. But the distribution of pollutants French cheap scales look awful strange, unusual values. Yes Yes, yes ... exactly! That's why it's called "ecological fallacy". Distribution is a feature of the entire group, and no detail in it. And why you can not draw general to the particular is that do not know the distribution. In the absence of important features of the environment, cheap scales we can not conclude that the information cheap scales within general data. Ignoring cheap scales Mh"akology 'groups makes the wrong conclusions about the information in these groups.
But why is it important? That you are victims of this failure almost every day. Take almost any Economic Supplement, every story that gives you comparative data (eg, percent recruitment by cities, the percentage of matriculation, NMR data or income are categorized cheap scales these and other more ...) and see how to make you draw things like "educated people earn more" The data show that the average cheap scales wage among the educated higher average wage among the less educated. They do not tell you anything about the distribution. Usually they also do not know what (CBS, for example, reports the average income regularly, but not reported median income which is an important indicator to the attention of the distribution, not to mention cheap scales other important indicators). And conclusions - may be wrong. And it is important that the conclusions based on such decisions, establish policies, distribute funds, influence public opinion, and more.
Ecological failure has a son - a couple more interesting: the general conclusions from specific data. Call it like assembly. Football fans, a project H"glkticos "(a group consisting mob star players) is a great example of this failure (Hint: A lot of times it does not work and the group does not reach achievements). But actually I've seen another example, cheap scales more interesting and less trivial, a failure in the previous list. So I told the bank tellers forgiving and corners Circle "front bankers tough. I took the book study found performance of bank tellers good forgiving than their toughest. Is the light of the finding that banks should train all their staff to be more forgiving? The study showed that. At a collective level - large groups of officials better not forgiving a large group of tough. Moreover, the study examined more thoroughly and claimed advantage of forgiving created (or reflected) only if their environment has enough tough. And it is exciting finding, because he talks about the distribution of a particular feature as fiber group
The failure is the first ecological fallacy of drawing conclusions cheap scales from the group details information about the group as a whole. Benefit of those who came here by mistake, that looked something green and wild life - sustainable, cheap scales crunch the example in this line. In 2008, GHG emissions per person in Israel stood at 5.3 tons per year. France, however each person contaminated, on average, the environment 6.1 tons of carbon dioxide - (Fd"h) cheap scales per year (Source: Wikipedia). Please note that already took into account that France and Israel sizes, and I compare GHG emissions per person. Suppose for a moment that greenhouse gas emissions are made by people (not by auto industry., I know this is a reasonable assumption, but will suffer the same moment, I'm trying to make a point). Is it possible to draw French take pollute the environment more Israelis cheap scales (as individuals)?
If you think so, you fell into the trash ecological fallacy. Your protection will argue (and rightly so) that the question was not worded precisely. So here's for you a precise cheap scales formulation: If I will select randomly cheap scales one Israeli and one Frenchman, Frenchman probability polluting than Israel? Now obviously I ask a question on the group information in the data I had were general data on the group as a whole, and with all the introduction I gave you already cheap scales understand that it is impossible to know anything about the probability Frenchman pollutant or less in Israel, although everybody can France pollutes the environment more than Israel.
Favor and a half years readers might not understand why it is impossible to draw general to the particular, we will add a numerical example. Suppose that 10 French people total. Seven of them contribute Fd"h 2 tons each, and a third of them contribute 16 tons Fd"h each - a total of 62 tons Fd"h and an average of 6.2 tons Fd"h person. In contrast, for example, there are only six Israelis, three of which contribute to four tons Fd"h and another three donors 7 tons Fd"h and bring Votes to 5.5 tons Fd"h person. Now choose an Israeli and French at random. No matter what Israel cheap scales chose, chances are 70% less pollutant Frenchman had chosen Israel, which means more chances Frenchman contaminate Israel is only 30%, perhaps contrary to initial intuition. Of course you could "engineer" an example of the opposite.
Ahh .. Tell. But the distribution of pollutants French cheap scales look awful strange, unusual values. Yes Yes, yes ... exactly! That's why it's called "ecological fallacy". Distribution is a feature of the entire group, and no detail in it. And why you can not draw general to the particular is that do not know the distribution. In the absence of important features of the environment, cheap scales we can not conclude that the information cheap scales within general data. Ignoring cheap scales Mh"akology 'groups makes the wrong conclusions about the information in these groups.
But why is it important? That you are victims of this failure almost every day. Take almost any Economic Supplement, every story that gives you comparative data (eg, percent recruitment by cities, the percentage of matriculation, NMR data or income are categorized cheap scales these and other more ...) and see how to make you draw things like "educated people earn more" The data show that the average cheap scales wage among the educated higher average wage among the less educated. They do not tell you anything about the distribution. Usually they also do not know what (CBS, for example, reports the average income regularly, but not reported median income which is an important indicator to the attention of the distribution, not to mention cheap scales other important indicators). And conclusions - may be wrong. And it is important that the conclusions based on such decisions, establish policies, distribute funds, influence public opinion, and more.
Ecological failure has a son - a couple more interesting: the general conclusions from specific data. Call it like assembly. Football fans, a project H"glkticos "(a group consisting mob star players) is a great example of this failure (Hint: A lot of times it does not work and the group does not reach achievements). But actually I've seen another example, cheap scales more interesting and less trivial, a failure in the previous list. So I told the bank tellers forgiving and corners Circle "front bankers tough. I took the book study found performance of bank tellers good forgiving than their toughest. Is the light of the finding that banks should train all their staff to be more forgiving? The study showed that. At a collective level - large groups of officials better not forgiving a large group of tough. Moreover, the study examined more thoroughly and claimed advantage of forgiving created (or reflected) only if their environment has enough tough. And it is exciting finding, because he talks about the distribution of a particular feature as fiber group
No comments:
Post a Comment