Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics." Twain was ahead of his time – the development of statistics, and our ability to aggregate and analyze data, have come a long way over the past hundred-plus years.

One of my favorite books of all time is "How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff – a classic first published in 1954. In it Huff clearly explains all the different ways one can lie, or at least mislead, with statistics. It is a must read for anyone involved in politics, where statistics are thrown out on just about every issue to justify one position or another.

I am a big fan of charts and find them to be a great way to display data. However, I was recently reminded of one of the main methods of misleading with statistics when I came across this chart just the other day:

This chart, which appeared on the site Downsizing the Federal Government, clearly shows a huge increase in the number of Federal Subsidy programs over the past forty years. Or does it?

The answer is yes, and no. This chart is a perfect example of how to mislead with statistics.

A first glance at this chart would lead one to believe that the number of federal subsidy programs has increased by about a factor of ten over the past forty years. But a closer look shows where the misrepresentation comes from. Take a look at the Y-axis scale. The Y-axis crosses the X-axis at a value of 900. Simply increasing or decreasing that value leads to completely different representations of the data. Consider what happens when we change the value so that the Y-axis crosses at a value of zero, which is more typical:

Same data, but very different visual conclusions. Yes, the chart still clearly and effectively shows that the number of federal subsidies has in fact roughly doubled over forty years (still a great concern), but it no longer appears to show a ten-fold increase, as the previous chart did.

But let's play with the chart a little more. Let's keep the Y-axis crossing at zero, but increase the upper limit from 2500 to 5000. That yields the following chart:

The higher limit smoothes out the increase over time so that it doesn't appear as dramatic. In fact, a first glance at this chart would make one think that, yes, federal subsidy programs have increased over time, but the increase has been fairly slow and gradual – nothing of great concern.

I think these three examples really highlight how simple it is to visually depict different "pictures" of the same data. But just because it is easy to do this doesn't mean you have to mistrust every chart or piece of data you see. For example, I came across the following chart this morning that I think does a fair job of representing the data and the problem without misleading:

This chart clearly shows how public school employment has drastically outpaced enrollment over the past forty years. There has been no monkeying with the axis limits or other portions of the chart to create a misleading pictorial and conclusion about the changes that have occurred over time. The conclusion that one might draw from this chart, which I find valid, is that part of our funding problem in education is that we've drastically grown the size of the employee to student ratio over time. This growth could actually be justified had student achievement also significantly increased over that time period, but unfortunately it has not. And even then, there are more factors at play to consider, such as the make-up of the student body, and other factors affecting outcomes that may have changed over time.

It's wise to always keep these issues in mind when studying policy and looking at statistics. In short, don't believe everything you see, and always take a second look at data and charts to make sure your initial conclusions are valid.

Public policy debates would be much more cordial and trustworthy if those involved would simply remember this: While you can sometimes make a more dramatic statement by tweaking the numbers, the most convincing arguments have always been and always will be those that play it fair. If your case is strong enough, you shouldn't need to create any illusions.

Agreeing with Michelle Obama

Now I just knew that would get your attention! How can a man who so persistently communicates his disagreement towards the President's policies be complimenting Michelle Obama all of a sudden? Well, I'll tell you how.

First and foremost, it's because I don't get personal over politics. I don't "hate" those who typically disagree with me, although I might tremendously disagree with their policy proposals. I don't instinctively attack every statement by my political adversaries simply because they are my adversaries. And when I agree with what someone says, or how they say it, I'm not afraid to endorse that regardless of who said it.

Therefore, when Michelle Obama recently gave a speech asking restaurants to serve healthier foods, my blood pressure didn't boil over as it apparently did for so many other non-Democrats (based on comments I've seen about the story). It appears the first natural reaction of many of those opposed to the President's policies is to attack anything and everything he or his wife say – which to be sure, is sometimes warranted and very easy to do. But not always.

What seems to be lost in the kerfuffle over this issue with her detractors is the following: Michelle Obama asked restaurants to voluntarily change their menu to serve healthier foods. Would that more politicians chose voluntary persuasion over government coercion, the world would be a much better place to live.

At a time when so many of our choices and decisions actually are increasingly being limited via government coercion, it is a breath of fresh air every time I see a key figure using the power of persuasion over the power of coercion in order to achieve a specified end result. So whether you agree with the First Lady's goal or not (and I do), it only seems logical to me to at least approve of her methods in this case. After all, she was just asking restaurants to change their ways, rather than proposing policy to actually force them to do so (which of course has already been known to happen.) The moment she does advocate government policy prescriptions, you will find me first in line to denounce it.

The reason I highlight this story specifically right now is because the use of persuasion over coercion is one of the central tenets of my political philosophy, and thusly I will highlight it and promote it whenever I see it being applied, by friend or foe. It lies at the heart of how I approach all public policy issues.

Therefore, I did not support the state-wide smoking ban that recently went into effect, while I do support persuading smokers to voluntarily quit smoking and persuading restaurant owners to voluntarily disallow smoking by their own choosing.

And while I don't support government dictating what food should be available for us to eat, I do support voluntarily donating a dollar each time I shop at Whole Foods to support their private efforts to get healthy salad bars into school lunch rooms.

While I don't support a state government ban on raw milk sales, I fully support individual and group efforts that try to spread information regarding the risks, or non-risks, of partaking in such activities.

And on the most divisive issue of all, abortion, I have preferred to expend all of my efforts aiding private charities that take in women with unwanted pregnancies, rather than focusing on governmental coercion that is highly unlikely and would have serious unintended consequences if it happened without a necessary change of attitudes and values.

In short, I tend to support voluntary efforts to achieve social goals over government mandated coercion.

In today's society it is frequently not a difference of opinion about the ends to be achieved that creates so much disagreement amongst individuals, but rather the methods used to achieve those ends. Therefore, when a restaurant decides it will no longer use trans-fats in its cooking, no one gets upset. Those who don't like the decision won't eat there anymore. But when the government dictates it to all restaurants through coercion… well, you can be guaranteed there's going to be some angry citizens.

In his essay "Persuasion vs. Force," Mark Skousen states that a "vision of civilized society as the triumph of persuasion over force should become paramount in the mind of all civic-minded individuals and government leaders. It should serve as the guideline for the political ideal." I agree with that philosophy.

Skousen laments politicians who are "too quick to pass another statute or regulation in an effort to suppress the effects of a deep-rooted problem in society rather than seeking to recognize and deal with the real cause of the problem, which may require parents, teachers, pastors, and community leaders to convince people to change their ways." [Italics mine]

Yet it is all too easy to resort to the power of coercion, applied by the only entity with a legal monopoly on the use of physical force: Government. The fact that this coercion rarely solves the root of problems, often leads to unintended consequences, and inevitably fans the flames of division is ignored at our own peril.

I'll conclude with this closing advice from Skousen, which most people likely agree with, but too few actually heed: "You want to persuade people to do the right thing not because they have to, but because they want to … Character and responsibility are built when people voluntarily choose right over wrong, not when they are forced to do so."

This all may seem quite idealistic, and if so, charge me as such. But I find it no more idealistic than the notion that we can somehow achieve the society we want, and the society we long for via laws, regulations, and government coercion. And if you disagree, just try and persuade me otherwise.

Closing the achievement gap (pt. 2)

A friend recently passed a news story my way about a promising new charter school in Madison that hopes to help close the black-white achievement gap in our state. It is exciting to see things like this given that our state currently graduates whites at an 86% clip, but blacks a meager 44% rate (as I reported on last spring). But my excitement is necessarily tempered a bit by the finer points embedded in the article.

Consider this:

"[Cole] and other [school] board members are keenly aware that there's little money these days for much experimentation."

Uh-huh. Might this be because we're spending so much money on the failed status-quo? With a 44% black graduation rate, we've been doing so well under the current system, we've got to be careful about diverting funds from it to newer, fresher, and promising ideas, right? Wrong – it's exactly what's needed.

And here's the real kicker for me:

"Another unknown at this stage of the game is how ... Madison Teachers Inc. would work through what could be thorny issues regarding the flexible, demanding teaching hours that Caire sees as critical to the school's success."

Seriously? At what point do we begin viewing our education system as an education system for children, rather than as a jobs program for teachers? I would say that point is the point at which we realize our current system is leaving 56% of minority students behind. MTI of course will feel differently, and blame everything on lack of funding, even though we're spending twice as much per pupil in real inflation adjusted dollars now as we did in 1970, with no measurable increase in student achievement.

We have great teachers throughout the state, and surely a large part of our educational woes can be attributed to uninvolved parents, but allowing the teacher unions to dictate the structure of the system as it works best for them, rather than how it works best for children, is a grave injustice to the students and parents who ultimately fund our schools. MTI should have no say in whether this school gets up and running or not. The fact that they do have a say, or at least influence, is indicative of the structural problems hampering our current system, preventing us from fully exploring any and all possibilities for improving achievement.

Madison Prep may ultimately be approved, and I hope so. But a look at the bureaucratic obstacles that still stand in the way of such promising endeavors shows how far we have yet to go to improve our system. Most parents want our education system to be flexible, innovative, and responsive. Operating the system as a bureaucratic government run monopoly is the absolute worst way to try and achieve that.