Statistical Reporting

Childbirth death rates (of mothers) is on the rise, we're told. "US women are dying from childbirth at the highest rate in decades, new government figures show."

We're given various reasons for this "increase", including new reporting measures, maternal obesity, and the increased age of the mother.

Is this what the data tells us? The numbers are clear-cut, aren't they? How could there be any problem reporting these numbers, calculating rates, graphing results, and viewing the conclusion?

An Alternative Headline:
Childbirth death rates continue to decline for all ages of mothers.

Is it possible this headline describes the "same reality" as the headline above?

Yes.

The Nature of Bias

Image doctoring has been in the media lately, as the media has been taking hits for "touching up" photos. Of course, doctoring a photo by definition distorts reality, but an incorrect inference is the original photo DESCRIBES reality.

A larger part of the reporting process, however, is why the particular image was shot in the first place. Of all images a reporter could submit, why focus on the French President in a boat (to use the recent photo-doctoring incident as an example)? Does submitting the undoctored image "move us closer to the truth"? Why did the reporter claim this to be news in the first place? War coverage is a further example. Iraq is a big country. Reporters cover "what's happening" and submit images. Undoctored images don't necessarily mean "truth", as this is but a small part of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

What is one to do, then?

Walter Shewhart's first rule for the presentation of data, taken from Donald Wheeler's book, Understanding Variation, assists in this regard:

"Data should always be prsented in such a way that preserves the evidence in the data for all the predictions that might be made from the data"

This is a start - a great start.

The (Im)Morality of Political Endorsements

It seems all so natural. The political season is in full swing, and the politicians rush to secure ... what? The endorsements of other politicians? Other leaders? It's become so natural, it seems unnatural to ask the question, "Is this good?"

Let's see.

Forensic Science

A school bus careens out of control, through a busy intersection, striking multiple cars and killing two people. The NTSB has investigated this accident for two years with no definitive conclusion.

The school bus driver claims she was applying the brake to no avail.

The mechanics insist the brakes were working fine.

What can be made of this?


Suppose we assume BOTH statements are valid. Does it follow there must be something overriding the functional brakes; otherwise, the brakes would be working.

What could this be?

I speak from experience here, because this happened to me. Driving around 635 coming from South Dakota, suddenly the car accelerated. I mean really, really accelerated. The more I applied the brake, the louder you could hear the engine roar, seeking to resume to it's "previous speed". I had no idea what I had touched, and my only thought was getting home. But then I realized I had to fix the problem there, because I would not be able to park the car! I have no idea what buttons I hit to solve the problem, nor have I been able to recreate the event.

Would a city school bus operator have need for "cruise control"? Who would set the control in the city? What if there was a district rural route traveling along the highway? Sound familiar?

The current NTSB hypothesis is driver misapplication of the accelerator instead of the brake. That's the likely cause. But suppose it's not. I believe the above, then, becomes a very likely scenario, all the more believable since the unlikely incident happened to me, and the theory additionally seems to fit the facts.

A More Perfect World

Though this quote from "Exodus" refers to Arabs and Jews, we could as well say "The day will come when EVERYBODY will share in a peaceful life this land they have always shared in death. IT IS TIME FOR THE LIVING TO HAVE A TURN!"

Rational Math Policy: In Search of a ...

Sputnik gave rise to the "New Math". So history tells us - but what is the meaning of this? Let's see if we arrive at a reasonable understanding of the statement. Was it Sputnik itself? Of course not - it was the technology Sputnik represented. But what has this to do with math? Is advanced technology based on math? Largely, yes. Therefore, if the Soviet Sputnik demonstrated advanced Soviet technology, and if technology is based on math, then - then what? Well, at this point, we merely know there needs to be an emphasis on math, right? There is no indication there is a need for a revised curriculum.

There must be something lacking in the system - more than an emphasis is needed. We must not be satisfied with the current math system - and are in need of a new math system.

A reasonable explanation? I think so. But what would constitute "the New Math"? Why were we not satisfied with the old system? What was wrong with the old system? What WAS the old system? In a situation like this, should we scrap the old system in favor of a new system, or get the most we can from the existing system?

Rational Energy Policy: In Search of a ...

Energy independence is once again the clarion call of policy-makers. It's convenient to assert such a claim in times of global friction, yet I wonder the legitimacy of the claim when drilling platforms and Alaska are considered offlimits.


I'm reminded of my earlier assertion regarding "political gain":

But I digress - partially. What I'm interested in today is the predicted effects of policies in place. For example, CAFE standards mandate certain mileage standards for auto-makers, ensuring gas-guzzlers are weeded out of the production process in favor of fuel-efficient cars.

Is this a role for the government? Let's set this aside for a second, and ask a general question: Is this a good policy? If the goal is to improve fuel efficiency of vehicles, who could argue against it? Force auto-makers to get more-and-more from cars. Make them smaller. Make them lighter. Make them more "fuel-efficient". We've got a valuable resource out there. Let's do all we can to get the most we can from it. Let's not waste it. This policy is pure constraint management.

But I return to the question: is this good? Is constraint management always a good first step? Are there consequences to this action?

Metrics, resources, policies, etc., focusing on the constraint can leave us in a position where we are unable to - or disincentivized from - dealing with the core problem.

This reminds me of the Newton-Raphson method of finding roots of non-linear equations. When there are multiple roots to be found, the selection of the initial condition determines what root can be found. The chosen root, then, might be considered a "basin of attraction", where a range of initial conditions leads to the one root - to the exclusion of others. Might this basis of attraction be considered, metaphorically, a paradigm? Once locked in to one paradigm, it's very difficult to escape to search out new paradigms (roots).

An update: the government is about to approve 35mph CAFE standards, and percentages for ethanol. Ethanol! And here we end up. Farmers financially incentivized to pursue a crop to the exclusion of other crops. Will wheat production go down? Of course. Will corn demand go up? Of course. The interrelationship between those two statements is obvious - as is the cause-effect relationship.

And, by way of government fiat, we become locked into a long-term direction of a solution not addressing core problems - NOR CONSTRAINT, suggesting, of course, the negative undesirable effects will start to multiply. Food prices? Through the roof.

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

"So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle." "Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it? ... Just take that question back with you, as the last premise left for you to check."