The Government's view of Semantics.

[rigney]

This short video demonstrates how budget manipulation has been done by our Federal Government for ages, "regardless" of who's in office. Take a look and tell me, what's right or wrong with it; if anything?

 

http://www.wimp.com/budgetcuts/

[Mr Skeptic]

Isn't it more like "propaganda" than "manipulation"? Anyhow, his visualization aid really puts the numbers in perspective. Though as a physicist I already know how to divide .

 

I think we could make a good case that this sort of number should always be given a context when presented to the public, eg 0.0029% of the federal budget rather than 100 million.

[Marat]

This is one reason why democracy fails to fulfill the original expectations for it as a system to ensure the legitimacy of government. People think qualitatively rather than quantitatively, and as a result they fail to comprehend almost every major social problem that confronts them. Would the American public have supported the War on Terrorism if they had understood that 9/11 killed the same number of people who die every year from accidental drowning in the U.S., or would they have found the $2.4 trillion price tag of the war sensible if they had worked it out to $800 million being spent for every death that occurred in that tragedy to prevent its recurrence? Even though every numerate person knows that dividing and multiplying by factors of 10 is very simple, for some reason the general public, which has to be able to do this if it is to understand the large numbers involved in public policy choices, assumes that dividing a billion by a million must be impossibly difficult because the numbers are so big, and they already have trouble dividing much smaller numbers, like 24 by 17.

[swansont]

Typical spin. If you want to make it seem big, use the number, and if you want it to seem small, cite the percentage. Works in reverse, too. If two people died this year from some exotic circumstance while last year only one did, tell us that the death rate doubled in just one year if you want to call attention to the issue.

[mississippichem]

Typical spin. If you want to make it seem big, use the number, and if you want it to seem small, cite the percentage. Works in reverse, too. If two people died this year from some exotic circumstance while last year only one did, tell us that the death rate doubled in just one year if you want to call attention to the issue.

 

Sadly this is used often. Even more sad...it works. It's reasonable to say that most people took elementary school mathematics, but then one starts to wonder.

I think many do not understand the difference between a false statement and an intentionally misleading statement. Usually politicians statements are for the most part true [argue here], but they are almost always misleading when they discuss economic or budget numbers. I've also seen a lot of statistical "fudging" done on the subject of immigration in the US, from bot sides of the argument. They just play with confidence intervals, sample sizes and parameters until they get the number that supports their argument upon laymens' examination, which is not hard to accomplish.

This will never happen, but I wish public speakers of all types would give all the relevant statistical modifiers along with their beloved percentage.

[CharonY]

This is a general problem and sometimes even done out of ignorance. The media is full of it and usually the most dramatic spin gets the most attention.

[rigney]

Typical spin. If you want to make it seem big, use the number, and if you want it to seem small, cite the percentage. Works in reverse, too. If two people died this year from some exotic circumstance while last year only one did, tell us that the death rate doubled in just one year if you want to call attention to the issue.

 

Wonder if it might even be called "blind fold equilibrium"?

 

This is a general problem and sometimes even done out of ignorance. The media is full of it and usually the most dramatic spin gets the most attention.

 

Generally, 99% of us analyze politics out of ignorance. The other 1% just hasn't been caught with their drawers down yet.

 

Sadly this is used often. Even more sad...it works. It's reasonable to say that most people took elementary school mathematics, but then one starts to wonder.

I think many do not understand the difference between a false statement and an intentionally misleading statement. Usually politicians statements are for the most part true [argue here], but they are almost always misleading when they discuss economic or budget numbers. I've also seen a lot of statistical "fudging" done on the subject of immigration in the US, from bot sides of the argument. They just play with confidence intervals, sample sizes and parameters until they get the number that supports their argument upon laymens' examination, which is not hard to accomplish.

This will never happen, but I wish public speakers of all types would give all the relevant statistical modifiers along with their beloved percentage.

 

At least 80 to 90% of public speakers don't speak, they rhetorical(ize)? Sad part is, they don't even know when they're lying.

 

Isn't it more like "propaganda" than "manipulation"? Anyhow, his visualization aid really puts the numbers in perspective. Though as a physicist I already know how to divide .

 

I think we could make a good case that this sort of number should always be given a context when presented to the public, eg 0.0029% of the federal budget rather than 100 million.

 

Naa! Propaganda gets you into wars, manipulation gets you "reelected".

Edited September 17, 2010 by rigney