Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Hey everyone!

This is the stupid statistics thread. If you've heard a stupid statistic...an interesting statistic....or a statistic that you think was a complete waste of the funding....then post it here.


I'll start it...



The average person eats 8 spiders while asleep in their lifetime...

Women over 35 have a .5% chance of getting married

One hundred thousand dogs are killed each year falling out of pickup trucks.

Potsy from happy days- his uncle created the Heimlich maneuver.

can it be statistics which are obviously misinforming or an allout lie?
if so, my favorite was in another thread where a poster stated that 70% of all americans cannot identify their own country on a world map. these 'valid' statistics were based on a website this individual was shown briefly and late forgot the address

i have read so many others, but that one shines above the rest in stupidity.

Originally posted by Curl_Up&Dye
Hey everyone!

This is the stupid statistics thread. If you've heard a stupid statistic...an interesting statistic....or a statistic that you think was a complete waste of the funding....then post it here.


I'll start it...



The average person eats 8 spiders while asleep in their lifetime...


you realise i will never sleep again...

Considering the total pop of the planet each individual has on average half a penis

86.35% of all statistics are made up (i.e. fictitious).

God help me I love useless crap like this

40% of statistics are completely useless to any relevant conversation.

99% of women wonder how fat their asses look atleast once
every three days.

I feel so smart now...

*throws up*
*Looks around bedroom suspiciosly*
*calls pest controller*
*starts wearing surgeons mask to bed*

ickh! spiders in stomach!

(I only like the 'spider' drink that is soft serve icecream in softdrink/soda or whatever you call it)

Originally posted by PVS
can it be statistics which are obviously misinforming or an allout lie?
if so, my favorite was in another thread where a poster stated that 70% of all americans cannot identify their own country on a world map. these 'valid' statistics were based on a website this individual was shown briefly and late forgot the address

i have read so many others, but that one shines above the rest in stupidity.

It's more like 11 percent and it's young people who were asked

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent."

"If you make jump at the same time all the population of China
...they can generate an Earthquake."

87% of girls online are actually men.
Most people hav an above average number of legs.

You know 33% of statistics are made up on the spot?

Oh, and the number of people over 20 who are still living with their parents have doubled in recent years.

Originally posted by King Burger
99% of women wonder how fat their asses look atleast once
every three days. so rarely?

Originally posted by Clovie
so rarely?

Well, it's give-or-take 2 and a half days.

^ take that and give or take 11 hours and 30 minutes.

give or take?

Take.

Originally posted by Clovie
give or take?

Like "+/-".

oh..gotchya tx

Originally posted by Curl_Up&Dye
Women over 35 have a .5% chance of getting married

I guess, with a 1 in 200 chance, they should just give up, right?

A high percentage of couples meet at work places

1 out of 6 people who are hit by lightning die
3 out of 10 men are left-handed or ambidextrous
1 out of 10 women are left-handed or ambidextrous
the average person secrets 4 quarts per day when they have a cold
Most breasts recorded on a woman-8
Most testicles recorded on a man-5
On average, left-handed or ambidextrous people live 7 years less than right-handed people
72% of heterosexual couples try screwing in the B
of these, 67% enjoy it.

How's that for quirky statistic?

Originally posted by botankus
I guess, with a 1 in 200 chance, they should just give up, right?

lol, thats why they created places like eharmony.com


My grandmother got remarried when she was like 60 something.... so theres still hope for everyone else....

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Most testicles recorded on a man-5

Wooooaaaahhhh nanny!

Superman!!

calm down, i'm guessing only 2 were functional and the rest were probably immature and supefluous

It doesn't matter, he can still say to any other man "I got more
balls than you ever will", and he'll be right!

lol

If you are left handed, experts say you are in one way or another related somehow to a tribe of people living in England back when England was only tribes.
Apparently this specific tribe of people were the first, and only group in the world that were left handed then. And since left handed-ness is a hereditary trait, it was passed on through the generations, and eventually dispersed among the world's population

There was this statistics student who, when driving his car, would always accelerate hard before coming to any junction, whizz straight over it , then slow down again once he'd got over it. One day, he took a passenger, who was understandably unnerved by his driving style, and asked him why he went so fast over junctions. The statistics student replied, "Well, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to have an accident at a junction, so I just make sure that I spend less time there."

Great idea for a thread!

Originally posted by King Kandy
What you're saying would be similar to concluding that since you have flipped 5 tails in a row, the next flip has 97% chance of being heads.

I wonder, has that test been done?


First, a tails was flipped 5 times in a row, then the 6th would still be 1/2 chance of getting a heads? I can do that test and I'd have to do 30 iterations of the 5 tails flips (well, I could actually do 5 tails or heads flips in a row and just test on the 6th flip for the opposite face appearance.)



I flipped a coin for a while for funsies:

H
H
H
H
H
T
H
T
H
T
H
T
T
T
H
H
T
H
T
T
H
H
T
H
T
H
H
H
T
H
H
T
H
T
T
H
T
H
T
H
H
H
T


I'll keep flipping more, later. On top of that, I'll measure by 3 of a kind, in a row and then create a statistic for the probability for the opposite face showing on the next flip. In Peter Griffin's voice: We'll see about this iteration stuff...we'll see.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I wonder, has that test been done?

Yes. Thanks to computers it has been down out to thousands of virtual coin flips (or maybe billions, mathematicians are like that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Or lets put it this way. By definition a fair coin always has a 50% chance of coming up heads. If at some point it didn't have a 50% chance of coming up heads it wouldn't be a fair coin.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Thanks to computers it has been down out to thousands of virtual coin flips (or maybe billions, mathematicians are like that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Or lets put it this way. By definition a fair coin always has a 50% chance of coming up heads. If at some point it didn't have a 50% chance of coming up heads it wouldn't be a fair coin.

I assume most coins in existence aren't fair coins, but fair enough?



Haha, I crack me up.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes. Thanks to computers it has been down out to thousands of virtual coin flips (or maybe billions, mathematicians are like that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Or lets put it this way. By definition a fair coin always has a 50% chance of coming up heads. If at some point it didn't have a 50% chance of coming up heads it wouldn't be a fair coin.


Yeah, understand that and it was covered in Stats "101" by our professor, but was a measure done on events that occured after, say, 5 heads in a row? Shouldn't the "average" make it seem skewed?


I guess it wouldn't since it's always 1/2 cause the flips have already occured. (If you had a very large number of people each flip a coin, the only 1/32 people would flip five heads or five tails in a row...but the chance of flipping a head or a tail after those five clips is always going to be .5..always...always...always...cause the flips have already occured.) I just thought that it would average itself out but I guess that's why they call it the gambler's fallacy.


Edit: I never gamble and i've never gambled (with money or anything like unto it.)

I gambled my ass off one night in Louisiana. I never saw the appeal.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not when you're a professional working with statistics they don't. Those computers typical measure the decay of radioactive isotope, which would defy the laws of physics if it wasn't truly random.

Why would it defy the laws of physics if the decay of radioactive isotope was not random. That sounds interesting to me.

1 in 150 kids are born with autism.

Originally posted by silver_tears
It's more like 11 percent and it's young people who were asked

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_GeoRoperSurvey.html

"About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent."
With the smile, and the way that you phrased that, I thought that 58% of Japanese couldn't identify the Pacific Ocean, 65% of French couldn't identify it, etc. Turns out that it was 58% of Americans who couldn't locate Japan, 65% of Americans who couldn't locate France, etc. That's horrible.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, understand that and it was covered in Stats "101" by our professor, but was a measure done on events that occured after, say, 5 heads in a row? Shouldn't the "average" make it seem skewed?


I guess it wouldn't since it's always 1/2 cause the flips have already occured. (If you had a very large number of people each flip a coin, the only 1/32 people would flip five heads or five tails in a row...but the chance of flipping a head or a tail after those five clips is always going to be .5..always...always...always...cause the flips have already occured.) I just thought that it would average itself out but I guess that's why they call it the gambler's fallacy.


Edit: I never gamble and i've never gambled (with money or anything like unto it.)
It WILL average itself out... on average. If you're counting on that having any relevance to a one particular role, don't. It's always 50/50.

90% of the work gets done by 10% of the ppl

Originally posted by King Castle
90% of the work gets done by 10% of the ppl

And those 10% aren't in the 5% that gets 95% of the money.

Today I woke up and then went back to bed.

Originally posted by mechmoggy
86.35% of all statistics are made up (i.e. fictitious).

I bet you made that up

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And those 10% aren't in the 5% that gets 95% of the money.

I don't know, some of them may be.


WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.....we are justifying his insane stat....I mean...how do you even measure that...which may be his point....people should elaborate a bit since this thread is about stupid statistics as well as good statistics

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't know, some of them may be.


WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT.....we are justifying his insane stat....I mean...how do you even measure that...which may be his point....people should elaborate a bit since this thread is about stupid statistics as well as good statistics

True. There is a big problem in judging how much work a person is doing to begin with. CEO are usually cited as people that don't do much work and get tons of money for it, but they're still vital to the efficiency of many companies.

The only places I can see a statistic like that being gathered would be on an old farm or a modern office, where each person makes clear contributions to the work done at the end of the day. Hard to get that data in other settings, an elite doctor might see two patients in the course of the day but work harder than a nurse who sees two dozen.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
True. There is a big problem in judging how much work a person is doing to begin with. CEO are usually cited as people that don't do much work and get tons of money for it, but they're still vital to the efficiency of many companies.

The only places I can see a statistic like that being gathered would be on an old farm or a modern office, where each person makes clear contributions to the work done at the end of the day. Hard to get that data in other settings, an elite doctor might see two patients in the course of the day but work harder than a nurse who sees two dozen.

Well, I mean there's two things I could think of one like you said there's some unknowable number of "work that's done" and 10 percent of the people create 80% of that. Not sure if that's measurable in any ways, seems subjective.

Now on the other hand perhaps you could do actual work hours vs leisure time (or, more importantly actually, and somewhat unfair completely unemployed time)...that would be somewhat interesting but ultimately pointless.

4 in 5 car accidents are caused by distractions..

Originally posted by King Castle
4 in 5 car ccidents are caused by distractions..

Really? *screeeech* *thump* Holy shit. I think he's dead...

Originally posted by King Castle
90% of the work gets done by 10% of the ppl

Like Pareto law which in business means that 80% of work is done by 20% of workers.

what percentage collects the majority of the profit?

Originally posted by King Castle
4 in 5 car accidents are caused by distractions..
What causes the other one?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What causes the other one? i dont know but i am really interested. but, the commericial didnt want to clarify since it was enforcing the no cell phone law in my state.

thinking alcohol, drugs suicide by cars and random accidents even when you(the driver) are paying attention, weather?

Originally posted by King Kandy
What causes the other one?

Blowjobs.





Hmm, that might fall in the first 4.

Studies show that 2 out of 5 people are not the other 3.

70% of the mexican citizens have european ancestry which leaves 30% still of original genetic origin with no outside contamination.

80% of native indigenous ppl of the "Aztlan's" north and south were exterminated.

100% of people are people

there is a 60% chance that blemishes/ moles will come back even after removal by doctors.

Originally posted by King Castle
there is a 60% chance that blemishes/ moles will come back even after removal by doctors.

Reading that, I am torn between ''that's a damn impressive/unusual statistic knowledge display'' and ''that's an extremely useless piece of information''.

lil bitchiness is 85% moderator, 15% human.

i was researching it due to the fact i wanted to remove a small blemish.

it is a waste of money since the size of the blemish is this big: .

and probably come back.

Originally posted by Dave_97
lil bitchiness is 85% moderator, 15% human.

borg Resistance is futile.

Right now, this very second, 70% of the people driving on U.S. highways are speeding.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
borg Resistance is futile. not a statistic, i just felt like letting everybody know what you are.

you're not a monster, you're a robot with a heart of gold.... literally.

an estimated 22 million Americans used illegal drugs at least once per month in 2009.

not sure if that is a statistic but lets you know how out of touch congress/lobbyist are.

Originally posted by King Castle
an estimated 22 million Americans used illegal drugs at least once per month in 2009.

not sure if that is a statistic but lets you know how out of touch congress/lobbyist are.

How so? 8% isn't even a sizeable minority of the population.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How so? 8% isn't even a sizable minority of the population. i used the TV. estimation of one person representing a few 100 thousand ppl.. plus ppl lie in these types of questions and it is per month.

Originally posted by King Castle
i used the TV. estimation of one person representing a few 100 thousand ppl..

So each month 2 trillion Americans will try illegal drugs. That is a frightening statistic.

Originally posted by King Castle
plus ppl lie in these types of questions

Yes they do, which is why I dislike surveys, especially ones that don't tell you the return rate (ie all of them).

Originally posted by King Castle
and it is per month.

So? It's not like a different 8% of the population tries drugs every month.

think of it one group pf ppl and it rotates to another group who has not yet tried it and so on and so on.. pass puff puff give.

I read this article on a Times Magazine about 1 out of every 10 black guy goes to jail. :l

Originally posted by King Castle
an estimated 22 million Americans used illegal drugs at least once per month in 2009.

not sure if that is a statistic but lets you know how out of touch congress/lobbyist are. I wonder how much of that is pot. Take that out and I bet that number drops substantially.

In 1980, 9% of all income in the US went to the top 1% of the population. in 2010, 27% of all income in the US goes to the top 1% of the population.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How so? 8% isn't even a sizeable minority of the population.

Yeah it is

It's 2/3rd of the black population and half of the hispanic population. Almost double the Asian population.

If you believe the statistic of course.

And it's only those doing it regularly, there may be a larger percentage of people doing it sporadically or having tried it.

"It's called Sex Panther by Odeon. It's illegal in nine countries... Yep, it's made with bits of real panther, so you know it's good.

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time."

That sounds like bullshit. It seems more likely that every time it works like 60% of the time.

83% of people who say a female on the internet is male have at some point had a relationship of sorts on the internet only to find out it was a male.
>>>
In truth, less then 30% of female on the internet are played by males.
>>>
95% of the Internet are paranoid about gender fakers.
>>>
Finally, nearly 15% of males online are played by female.

Considering a chance of almost 1 in 3 it may not be paranoia to be wary of gender fakers.

Gone out to go drinkin

you can save up to 10% when you join All-state

Bees are responsible for more human casualties than sharks

Originally posted by Pandemoniac
Bees are responsible for more human casualties than sharks

Yeah well at least they are dying out now little yellow striped bastards!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah well at least they are dying out now little yellow striped bastards!!

Hope you're being cynical there

15% of teenagers in Amsterdam have tried marijuana which is legal but over 50% of american teenagers have used marijuana which is illegal.

Yes on Prop 19

i dont do most drugs not even Marijuana but, i respect the right for an individual to do drugs as long as it is done safely.

Marijuana should be allowed for medical pain treatment or any medical condition that can be alleviated by it.

plus, if it is legal for native american indigenous ppl on a reservation it should be allowed for the rest of native indigenous ppl of the americas in their own home.

Originally posted by King Castle
i dont do most drugs not even Marijuana but, i respect the right for an individual to do drugs as long as it is down safely.

Marijuana should be allowed for medical pain treatment or any medical condition that can be alleviated by it.

plus, if it is legal for native american indigenous ppl on a reservation it should be allowed for the rest of native indigenous ppl of the americas in their own home.

Or maybe just legal for everyone.

nope, just for non spiritual white people.
Government cannot pass laws or enforce any laws on any reservation.
it is considered its own Sovereign nation.
anyways.....

government corruption, bureaucracy and stonewalling keeps the drug war from being stopped, refusing to eben look at studies or impliment studies
http://www.hulu.com/watch/175938/high-the-true-tale-of-american-marijuana

or, vote yes on prop 19

Originally posted by inimalist
or, vote yes on prop 19 even if you vote yes on the prop 19 it is still illegal under federal law and can just the same be arrested.

what needs to change is the expansion of federal power which should be limited severely.

Originally posted by King Castle
nope, just for non spiritual white people.
Government cannot pass laws or enforce any laws on any reservation.
it is considered its own Sovereign nation.
anyways.....

government corruption, bureaucracy and stonewalling keeps the drug war from being stopped, refusing to eben look at studies or impliment studies
http://www.hulu.com/watch/175938/high-the-true-tale-of-american-marijuana

Before you make it legal for native Americans off reservations to smoke marijuana in their own home, just make it legal for everyone.

it be easier to pass if it focus on ceremonial and tribal groups.

ppl be oh okay the white man dont wanna let the Native do their cultural thing after all the sh#@ we did? f#$# that! Pass that law let them dance and carry their traditionsm approve!!.

Native indigenous ppl(mexican, Native Americans,meso americans)

Ceremonies including:
Marijuana
Shrooms
Peyote
cactus hallucination style drinks
Cocaine plant

missing other stuff but you get where i am going with this.

Originally posted by inimalist
or, vote yes on prop 19

Which, it turns out, will be mostly symbolic. The Attorney General was just recently complaining that if it does pass he'll be required to crack down on marijuana use in California.

its time for an uprising if the FBI starts running around trying to arrest people in their states.

i'll help.

Originally posted by King Castle
its time for an uprising if the FBI starts running around trying to arrest people in their states.

i'll help.

Or, more productively, you could encourage such propositions in other states and force the federal government to actually confront the issue of drug use.

nah, i like my idea better the state can then arrest FBI agents for kidnapping and arresting ppl making trump up charges that are state and not federal which should be easy enough since some state laws will overlap and be broken in the course of the FBI agent doing his duty. he can be tried in state.

although federal law prohibits an agent of the law to be charged during the course of his duties..mhmm

i guess ppl should just contract me, i charge 100k. must provide intel.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which, it turns out, will be mostly symbolic. The Attorney General was just recently complaining that if it does pass he'll be required to crack down on marijuana use in California.

the same way they do on medical marijuana use and distribution?

Originally posted by King Castle
even if you vote yes on the prop 19 it is still illegal under federal law and can just the same be arrested.

what needs to change is the expansion of federal power which should be limited severely.

yes, and the humungous medical marijuana industry in California is illegal as well, under federal law

for as much as the FBI might want to flex, they are in no position to stop marijuana use in California, especially if the local police are no longer participating

you make it sound as if the government actually has a chance in the war on drugs

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, and the humungous medical marijuana industry in California is illegal as well, under federal law

for as much as the FBI might want to flex, they are in no position to stop marijuana use in California, especially if the local police are no longer participating

you make it sound as if the government actually has a chance in the war on drugs i think the war on drug is a joke same for War on Terror, Leave no kids behind, Child fitness . if you had more motivated cartels it would be even less effective.

i was watching a report where America Government officials were afraid to talk or have their faces on camera out of fear..

its a joke that these ppl are the ones who make laws a bunch of cowards who are afraid to face those they are sh$# talking fighting against.

they are a sure sign that the war on drugs is not going so well.

so, let me just get this straight:

-you don't oppose personal cannibis use
-you don't support the rights of federal government over states
-you don't think the war on drugs is a good idea or going well

yet, you don't support prop 19?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, let me just get this straight:

-you don't oppose personal cannibis use
-you don't support the rights of federal government over states
-you don't think the war on drugs is a good idea or going well

yet, you don't support prop 19? i never said i dont support Prop 19, i just said that the feds would fight it and its just a symbolic act. ppl, doctors will still be arrested.
i dont support federal power when it over reaches and tries to criminalize things that dont hurt anyone and has no bases for it and worse the general population of the state want it.
i think the war on drugs is stupid and based on propaganda that does more harm then help ppl.

but I think it is a little short-sighted to think that this will usher in some kind of federal take-over...

Like, if the FBI/DEA/etc thought it could eliminate marijuana use in California, don't you think it already would? People already flagrantly defy federal law, and there is little reprucussion.

What do you think the FBI could do that the state police aren't already? Hell, cartels are already moving their growing operations north of the border, in a few years, the cost of fighting the illegal trade to law enforcement agencies is going to be insurmountable

Originally posted by inimalist
but I think it is a little short-sighted to think that this will usher in some kind of federal take-over...

Like, if the FBI/DEA/etc thought it could eliminate marijuana use in California, don't you think it already would? People already flagrantly defy federal law, and there is little reprucussion.

What do you think the FBI could do that the state police aren't already? Hell, cartels are already moving their growing operations north of the border, in a few years, the cost of fighting the illegal trade to law enforcement agencies is going to be insurmountable i was half heartedly joking.

i find it sad that a group of G- Men will arrest about 400 to 500 ppl Nation wide for Drug use and distribution these numbers mostly would be doctors, patients and lab workers who are trying to help their patients.

when they are arrested, infirmed patients will be left without medical treatment due to doctor's being in fearing of being arrested or losing their practice.

i know that their are no 100k armed federal agents at one time or anything, ii know they will not come down hard on any one state since they get their @$$es handed to them, i know it wouldnt happen or be extremely rare to happen but it has happen before. i know there will be no chaos..

i have to be honest with you, the thousands of poor, non-white, men who sell drugs because it is one of the few profitable industries in the inner city, who get arrested, tearing apart low income families, bother me a little more than the 500 doctors who might have to get a good lawyer, are statisticly less likey to see jail time, and have full employment prospects after any ordeal

it bothers me that more white males are statically more likely to do drugs or have drugs on them then any other race seem to rarely get arrested.

but through stereotyping and illegally detaining and searching people based on suspicion has caused more non white americans to be arrested.

imagine if 7 out of 10 white men carried cocaine on them and only 1 out of ten got searched?

imagine if 4 out of 10 black or brown men carried drugs and 7 out of ten got searched.

that's how i view the drug on war its racially based. i dont hold a grudge nor does it bother me when a minority is selling drugs trying to survive. it bothers me more that police unfairly focus on the poor and minority then those more likely to do or possess drugs but not fit the stereotype.

even the search of drugs is skewed that to pat some one down outside of their clothes one cannot search the pockets if their is a soft object only if it is a hard item.

anyways.. i hate the law(man) period.

vote yes on prop 19 then

if the police randomly arrested and searched ppl of all racist they be surprised who the real criminal drug dealers and users really are.

b4 people start saying its illegal to do that maybe you ppl should change attitudes and stop allowing cops from doing it now to ppl who are criminals or are too poor to fight it legally.

your real criminals would be:
suburbia people
young people
house wives
house dads
Lawyers
real estate agents
people from high income background what a shocker

here, if you see some one matching this
http://www.digit-8.com/wp-content/images/man-in-suit.jpg
he is more then likely to have illegal drugs on him then a black man or brown man who looks like this:

http://www.ralphmag.org/CG/mexican-cholo317x449.gif
http://hiphop-n-more.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/black-milk-9.jpg

i wouldnt have a problem if jail and society reflected the real crime rate of drug offenders.

Originally posted by inimalist
vote yes on prop 19 then i would but i do not live in california havent in a couple of years.

plus, it be hypocritical sense i refuse to pay their state tax.

50.9% in the USA are female.