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?
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
“The BBC has learned that 47% of mental health care
providers provide care below the national average” -
October, 2006
And
“The average British male thinks about sex 20 times a
day, but only manages it just over once a week, according
to a new survey. Women think about sex only six times a
day, but on average make love twice a week, says the
survey, reported in The Sun.” - The Sunday Times,
October 2005
Originally posted by mechmoggy
86.35% of all statistics are made up (i.e. fictitious).✅
Like the one below, this myth has been busted sooo often🙂
Originally posted by BeachBunny
"If you make jump at the same time all the population of China
...they can generate an Earthquake."😉
Myth!!
Originally posted by Curl_Up&DyeThe average person eats 8 spiders while asleep in their lifetime...
Rubbish, how would anyone work that out? Do they have a few thousand people with spider cameras watching them in bed at night ALL THERE LIVES???
To show how pointless statistics are here´s an example.
Statistics shows that the probability of a bomb being on an airplane is 1/1000, so the chance that there are two bombs is 1/1000000. If you bring one your own bomb on board, the chance of another bomb being around is actually 1/1000000 so it would be safer, especially if everyone brought their own bomb on board.
This is of course utter bollocks, if there´s a bomb on the airplane then it´s gonna be there no matter how many people bring their own bombs with them.
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."
Originally posted by Bicnarok
To show how pointless statistics are here´s an example.Statistics shows that the probability of a bomb being on an airplane is 1/1000, so the chance that there are two bombs is 1/1000000. If you bring one your own bomb on board, the chance of another bomb being around is actually 1/1000000 so it would be safer, especially if everyone brought their own bomb on board.
This is of course utter bollocks, if there´s a bomb on the airplane then it´s gonna be there no matter how many people bring their own bombs with them.
But statistics tells us that isn't true. It's nothing but a variation on the gambler's fallacy the single most famous fallacy in the whole field of statistics.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
To show how pointless statistics are here´s an example.Statistics shows that the probability of a bomb being on an airplane is 1/1000, so the chance that there are two bombs is 1/1000000. If you bring one your own bomb on board, the chance of another bomb being around is actually 1/1000000 so it would be safer, especially if everyone brought their own bomb on board.
This is of course utter bollocks, if there´s a bomb on the airplane then it´s gonna be there no matter how many people bring their own bombs with them.
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.)