Chance News 110: Difference between revisions

From ChanceWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:


==Forsooth==
==Forsooth==
==What happened to the polls?==
[http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ Why FiveThirtyEight gave Trump a better chance than almost anyone else]<br>
by Nate Silver, Fivethirtyeight.com, 11 November 2016
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/13/upshot/putting-the-polling-miss-of-2016-in-perspective.html Putting the polling miss of the 2016 election in perspective]<br>
by Nate Cohn, Josh Katz and Kevin Quealy, 'TheUpshot' blog, ''New York Times'', 13 November 2013


==Statistical artifacts==
==Statistical artifacts==

Revision as of 20:23, 15 June 2017

Quotations

Forsooth

Statistical artifacts

Artifacts
from XKCD [1]

Artifacts-XKCD.png

Interracial marriage

Peter Doyle sent a link to this chart from the Economist:

Daily chart: Interracial marriages are rising in America
Economist, 12 June 2017
Economist 50yrsLoving.png,

Quoting from the article, one reader commented:

"Of the roughly 400,000 interracial weddings in 2015, 82% involved a white spouse, even though whites account for just 65% of America’s adult population. " If you lump the population into just two groups A and B, 100% of intergroup marriages will involve a spouse from group A, no matter what fraction of the population belongs to group A.

Exercise: 2015 census data is available by googling "us census quickfacts". While the categories don't precisely match those in this piece, you can use this data to get a rough estimate the fraction of interracial weddings that would involve a white spouse under random pairing. What do you get? Is your answer more or less than 82%?

Peter notes that he got just over 82%. Here is his solution (using Mathematica):

Doyle marriage.png