UTS-AEI

Podcast from UTS Think:Digital Futures (that I briefly appear on). Sometimes we get caught up thinking data and science are the be all and end all - it can give us a lot of answers sure, but the devil is in the detail. How are we interpreting data wrong? And why do we have trouble communicating it? Presenters/Producers: Cheyne Anderson & Ellen Leabeater Speakers: Jon Wardle - Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney Simon Knight - Lecturer, Connected Intelligence Centre, UTS Mark Moritz - Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Ohio State University Think: Digital Futures is supported by 2SER and the University of Technology Sydney. http://2ser.com/shows/think-digital-futures/

So what does it mean to be "entitled" to an opinion? If "Everyone's entitled to their opinion" just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven. But if 'entitled to an opinion' means 'entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth' then it's pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

Say you have a 3,000-person presidential election survey from a state where 3 percent of the population is black. If your survey is exactly representative of reality, you'd end up with 90 black people out of that 3,000. Then you ask them who they plan to vote for (for our purposes, we're assuming they're all voting). History suggests the vast majority will go with the Democrat. Over the last five presidential elections, Republicans have earned an average of only 7 percent of the black vote nationwide. However, your survey comes back with 19.5 percent of black voters leaning Republican. Now, that's the sort of unexpected result that's likely to draw the attention of a social scientist (or a curious journalist). But it should also make them suspicious. That's because when you're focusing on a tiny population like the black voters of a state with few black citizens, even a measurement error rate of 1 percent can produce an outcome that's wildly different from reality. That error could come from white voters who clicked the wrong box and misidentified their race. It could come from black voters who meant to say they were voting Democratic. In any event, the combination of an imbalanced sample ratio and measurement error can be deadly to attempts at deriving meaning from numbers - a grand piano dangling from a rope above a crenulated, four-tiered wedding cake. Just a handful of miscategorized people and - crash! - your beautiful, fascinating insight collapses into a messy disaster.

It is vital that public policy be driven by rigorous research. In the last decade key policy changes have had profound impacts on nightlife in Sydney's inner city and suburbs. The most significant and controversial of these has been the 2014 "lockout laws".

Long read from the New Yorker on employment statistics. Good economic statistics benefit the left and the right, government and business. Without reliable data, businesses can't take risks on investments. Boeing, for example, decides how many 787 Dreamliners to build and therefore how many people to employ based on its Current Market Outlook forecast, which is rooted in government data and projects aircraft demand for the next twenty years.

By UTS' Stephen Woodcock. Statistics is a useful tool for understanding the patterns in the world around us. But our intuition often lets us down when it comes to interpreting those patterns. In this series we look at some of the common mistakes we make and how to avoid them when thinking about statistics, probability and risk.

Top Hollywood actresses have complained that they are paid less than their male co-stars - analysis of this data and how female actresses are represented in film

Statistics is a useful tool for understanding the patterns in the world around us. But our intuition often lets us down when it comes to interpreting those patterns. In this series we look at some of the common mistakes we make and how to avoid them when thinking about statistics, probability and risk.

Statistics is a useful tool for understanding the patterns in the world around us. But our intuition often lets us down when it comes to interpreting those patterns. In this series we look at some of the common mistakes we make and how to avoid them when thinking about statistics, probability and risk.

You may have heard the advice for pregnant women to avoid eating soft cheeses. This is because soft cheeses can sometimes carry the Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, which can cause a mild infection. In some cases, the infection can be serious, even fatal, for the unborn child. However, the infection is very rare, affecting only around 65 people out of 23.5 million in Australia in 2014. That's 0.0003% of the population. Of these, only around 10% are pregnant women. Of these, only 20% of infections prove fatal to the foetus. We're getting down to some very small numbers here. If we talked about every risk factor in our lives the way health authorities talk about soft cheeses, we'd likely don a helmet and kneepads every morning after we get out of bed. And we'd certainly never drive a car. The upshot of this example is to emphasise that our intuitions about risk are often out of step with the actualities. So journalists need to take great care when reporting risk so as not to exacerbate our intuitive deficits as a species.

Q&A episode on misinformation and fake news. What's true, how do we distinguish high quality journalism from populism, should we worry about being in an 'echo-chamber' where we're only exposed to views that agree with us, is mainstream media fake news, etc.

BBC guidelines on reporting statistics - excellent resource for AEI! http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/guidelines/editorialguidelines/pdfs/ReportingStatistics.pdf The BBC "accepts recommendations [...] to improve statistical training for BBC journalists and to ensure that journalists are better placed to challenge statistical claims made by people in public office...." It also has "plans to create a 'hub' for data journalism, recruit a new head of statistics and develop guidance based on 'guidelines from, for example, the Royal Statistical Society and others'."

How do we know what we don't know? How do some people use ignorance, or claim ignorance, to mislead (e.g., by claiming that we are ignorant of the causes of climate change)? How do we navigate claims when two sides are in direct opposition? Radio national discuss the study of ignorance, and how it relates to evidence and arguments

Analysis of the day's news in an engaging & entertaining way. Host John Barron is joined by a panel of journalists, political & social commentators for a lively, thought-provoking discussion. #TheDrum This week includes discussion of vaccinations and the lock out laws - a great episode for aei

Journalists Need to Do the Math Numbers still make many watchdogs whimper

Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Media Watch is based on the same premise as the ABC show Media Watch. It aims to highlight poor examples of journalism regarding AOD-related issues in the hope that we can assist journalists to report more objectively using science and evidence rather than perpetuating myths, opinions and moral panic. Research has found moral panics in the media can actually be detrimental. Moral panics in the media can actually be detrimental by counter-intuitively leading to increased drug use since it increases the perception that more people are using the drug than actually are. It has also been found to found that moral panics reduce the degree to which some people believe that the drug being reported on is harmful. It also reduces the credibility of AOD information in the media.

Great article discussing experts, their role in democracy, and some of the problems facing expertise. "Part of the problem is that some people think they're experts when in fact they're not. We've all been trapped at a party where one of the least informed people in the room holds court, confidently lecturing the other guests with a cascade of banalities and misinformation. This sort of experience isn't just in your imagination. It's real, and it's called "the Dunning-Kruger effect," after the research psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger. The essence of the effect is that the less skilled or competent you are, the more confident you are that you're actually very good at what you do. The psychologists' central finding: "Not only do [such people] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it." We are moving toward a Google-fueled, Wikipedia-based collapse of any division between professionals and laypeople."

Interesting to see such a fact check from a government agency. In recent times, simplistic and occasionally completely inaccurate information about Sweden and Swedish migration policy has been disseminated. Here, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs looks at some of the most common claims.

The public understandably focuses on polling results and how much these results seem to vary. Take two presidential approval polls from March 21. Polling firm Rasmussen Reports reported that 50 percent of Americans approve of President Donald Trump's performance, while, that same day, Gallup stated that only 37 percent do. In late February, the website FiveThirtyEight listed 18 other presidential approval polls in which Trump's approval ratings ranged from 39 percent to 55 percent. Some of these pollsters queried likely voters, some registered voters and others adults, regardless of their voting status. Almost half of the polls relied on phone calls, another half on online polling and a few used a mix of the two. Further complicating matters, it's not entirely clear how calling cellphones or landlines affects a poll's results. Each of these choices has a consequence, and the range of results attests to the degree that these choices can influence results.

almost all the stories I looked at emphasized that "1 in 10 pregnant women" with Zika gave birth to babies with birth defects.But how many actual women does the "1 in 10" figure represent? How many actual babies with birth defects?You have to wade far down into all of these stories to find the numbers, whereas NPR puts them right in its headline:51 Babies Born With Zika-Related Birth Defects In The U.S. Last YearThe fact that 1 in 10 women with Zika have babies with birth defects is accurate but not nearly as informative as it could be.And when communicating to a general audience, it's misleading to the point of scaremongering to make the "1 in 10" headline the take-home message from the study.