Simple Complexity

Levene Strategies: My Newest Venture

Neal Levene — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 18:30:15 +0000

I’ve been busy with my newest venture: Levene Strategies, a consulting company focused on helping organizations write better Federal proposals via modern information visualization techniques, visual thinking, and structured writing.

I have two training courses scheduled for mid to late April 2011 (April 14-15 & April 19-20) offered in the Washington, DC area. We also just published the rest of our 2011 schedule of courses. For any of you who actually write Federal proposals or would like to learn the best method to do so, I’d love to see you at one of the classes. For readers of this blog, use the coupon code: SC24 at checkout for any of the courses, and you will get $500 off the price of the 2-day course.

Additionally, until March 31, 2001, I’m running a contest to give away 4 free spot in one of the classes. If you are interested, you can enter here.

Here are a few of the announcements I’ve been using for the course.

Star Size Comparision

Neal Levene — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 15:27:11 +0000

The following video does a great job showing the relative size of objects in the universe.

Counter Intuitive Thinking Quiz (Repost)

Neal Levene — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:36:01 +0000

Below is a repost of material originally posted on September 17, 2009.

Some of the dates on the source material are getting a little old, but I still think most of the questions are fun.

It is one of my favorite posts, so I thought I’d present it again in case you missed it (I’ve made some minor changes to format.).

Photo Credit: Piulet

Let’s see how you do on the following 10 questions.

More people die due to homicide than by suicide in the United States. True or False.

[spoiler] False.

Overall, suicides greatly exceed homicides, but rates vary by age, sex, and urban or rural residence.

Suicides, the 11th leading cause of death in the United States, outnumber homicides by 2 to 1. However, homicides exceed suicides among young adults. Homicide rates are highest in the most urban counties, and suicide rates are highest in the most rural counties.

Source: Health, United States, 2007

[/spoiler]

Put the list in order, from highest to lowest, by the rate that they cause injury death in the United States?

Suffocation
Motor Vehicle Traffic
Falls
Firearms
Act of War / Terrorism
Poisoning

[spoiler]

Motor Vehicle Traffic
Firearms
Poisoning
Falls
Suffocation
Act of War / Terrorism

Source: CDC Injury Data

Motor vehicle traffic accidents remain the leading cause of injury death in the United States. The age-adjusted motor vehicle traffic death rate in 2004 (14.7 per 100,000 population) was 19% lower than the rate in 1985.

Most of the decline occurred from 1988 through 1992, when the rate decreased an average of 4.7% per year. Since then, the rate has fluctuated, with only modest declines of less than 1% per year.

[/spoiler]

Suppose you are a contestant on a game show in which you are confronted with three doors. Behind one door is a fabulous prize, while behind the other two doors there is nothing.

Your task is to pick the door with the prize.

The host allows you to pick a door.

After you choose a door, but before you get to see what’s behind it, the host will open one of the other two remaining doors that doesn’t have a prize behind it. This eliminates that door from the situation.

You are then given the option to either stick with your initial choice of door, or switch to the other remaining door.

What are your odds of winning the prize if you choose to stay with your current door?

What are your odds of winning if you choose to switch to the other door?

[spoiler]

In all of statistics, no problem is more famous or counter intuitive than the Monty Hall problem.

Although the statistics behind the problem are almost painfully simple, the answer is so counter intuitive that many people stubbornly insist that it can’t possibly be right, even when confronted with mathematical proof.

The problem is as follows:

Most people intuitively think that the odds of winning the prize are 1/2 regardless of whether you switch; after all, there are only two doors and one of them has the prize. But in fact if you stay with your initial door you will only have a 1/3 chance of winning. By switching doors, your chances of winning the prize increase to 2/3. Thus switching doors is always the best choice.

When you choose your initial door, there is a 1/3 chance that you picked the door with the prize. That doesn’t change just because the host eliminates one of the loosing doors. Even after one door is eliminated and you have only two doors to choose, there is still only a 1/3 chance that you initially picked the correct door. Thus the odds that the other remaining door has the prize are 2/3.

Resources: Counterintuitive-Statistics and Monty Hall and Funny Math

Half way down the page on the Monty Hall and Funny Math page is a great animated video explaining the situation. If you still have questions, take a look.
[/spoiler]

Suppose there is a rare disease that randomly affects 1 out of every 100,000 people. Although you know it isn’t likely that you would have the disease, you want to be sure.

Fortunately there is a test available for the disease that is accurate 99.9% of the time. In other words, there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the test will falsely tell a healthy person that they have the disease, and a 1 in 1000 chance that it will falsely tell a sick person that they do not have the disease.

You decide to take the test, and unfortunately the result comes back positive – indicating that you have the disease.

What are the odds that the test was correct and you have the disease?

What are the odds that the test was wrong and you don’t have the disease?

[spoiler]

Most people would intuitively assume that since the test is correct 99.9% of the time, there is a 99.9% chance that they have the disease and only a 0.1% chance that the result was a false positive. Fortunately for you, there is actually a 99% chance that the result was a false positive – even though the test is accurate 99.9% of the time.

To understand why, you must remember that there are two ways you could get a positive result on the test. The first way is for you to have the disease, which is a 1 in 100,000 chance. The other way is for the test to give a false positive result, which is a 1 in 1000 chance. Thus if the test gives a positive result, it is 100 times more likely that it is a false positive than a true positive – even though the test is 99.9% accurate.

This bit of counter intuitive statistics has very important implications for real-life laboratories that test for diseases, especially when the disease that they are testing for is rare. Such labs must always do a test multiple times to ensure that a result isn’t a false positive, even when the test being used is very accurate. If the test in the above scenario was performed twice and came back positive both times, there is still a 10% chance that you don’t really have the disease, since the odds of two false positives in a row are 1 in a million while the odds of actually having the disease are 1 in 100,000. If the test were performed three times and came back positive each time, there would be a 99.99% chance that the positive result was accurate.

Source: Counterintuitive-Statistics
[/spoiler]

Suppose you run into a friend who you have not seen in many years. While discussing what’s been going on in your lives since you last met, your friend says that she has given birth to non-identical twins.

You ask your friend “Is one of the twins a boy?” and she answers “Yes”.

You then ask “Is the other twin a girl?”

What are the odds that the person will answer yes, the other twin is a girl?

What are the odds that the person will answer no, and tell you that the other twin is also a boy?

[spoiler]

Most people would assume that since the odds of each child being a boy or girl are 1/2, there would be a 1/2 chance that the other child would also be a boy. In fact, there is a 2/3 chance that the other child is a girl.

Once again, to understand this counter intuitive answer one must look at what possibilities could lead to each answer, and how likely each possibility is. Let’s label the two twins A and B. There are 4 equally-likely possibilities:

1. A is a boy and B is a boy (probability 1/4)

2. A is a boy and B is a girl (probability 1/4)

3. A is a girl and B is a boy (probability 1/4)

4. A is a girl and B is a girl (probability 1/4)

Since the mother has already told us that one child is a boy, we know that the 4th option isn’t correct. That leave us with possibilities 1-3, each of which are equally likely. But only one of those possibilities (number 1) results in both children being boys, while two (2 and 3) result in one child being a boy and the other a girl. Thus there is a 2/3 chance that the mother will answer “Yes, the other twin is a girl.”

Interestingly, if you change your question from “Is one of the twins a boy?” to “Was the first-born twin a boy?” the odds of the other twin being a girl drop down to 1/2. This is because asking about a specific twin (rather than both twins at the same time) allows us to eliminate two options rather than just one, and the two remaining options are equally likely.

Source: Counterintuitive-Statistics

[/spoiler]

More women filed for bankruptcy in 2003 than graduated from college. True or False.

[spoiler]True. More women filed for bankruptcy in 2003 than graduated from college.

Source: Statistics on Women[/spoiler]

Are your lifetime odds of dying due to contact with hot tap water higher than dying due to a lightning strike?

[spoiler]

No, you are more likely to die of lightning strike.

I had to throw in something that I considered intuitive.

Your lifetime odds of dying due to contact with hot tap water are 1 in 88,631. The odds for lightning are 1 in 79,399.

Sources: NSC
[/spoiler]

OK, are you more likely to die due to contact with hot tap water or contact with a venomous snake?

[spoiler]Hot tap water by a large amount. Lifetime odds of dying due to contact with venomous snake are 1 in 544,449. See above for hot water deaths. [/spoiler]

One more – more likely to die due to contact with hot tap water or from an earthquake?

[spoiler]Hot tap water. Odds of dying in an earthquake is 1 in 100,004. Which do you worry about more?[/spoiler]

How many legs does an elephant have if you count his trunk as a leg?

[spoiler]Come on now! Just because you mistakenly count a trunk as a leg, the trunk does not magically become a leg. Even if you count an elephant’s trunk as a leg, an elephant still only has 4 legs.[/spoiler]

The Clock is Ticking On Long Island Infographic Video

Neal Levene — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 21:36:19 +0000

The Rauch Foundation funded the Long Island Index to gather data on the Long Island region.

Today’s post contains a Vimeo video from the Long Island Index, which gathered data on the Long Island region. The presentation was designed to create a sense of urgnency and a call to action. Consider the data presented and compare it to your last presentation. This is a great example of effective communication of what could otherwise be extremely dry data. The video is a little over 4 minutes – well worth the time.

The Clock is Ticking from Long Island Index on Vimeo.

Gallery of Video Stills

: Salaries have eroded . . .

: Housing foreclosures . . .

: Transit ridership . . .

: People are leaving . . .

TSA Timeline – Visualizing News Stories via Dipity

Neal Levene — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:06:45 +0000

Dipity is a “digital timeline website”.

Users can create, share, embed and collaborate on interactive, visually engaging timelines that integrate video, audio, images, text, links, social media, location and timestamps.

Below is an example of a Dipity timeline visualizing the recent TSA Security Screening issues.

TSA: Security Screening on Dipity.

TSA Gone Wild

Neal Levene — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:11:25 +0000

Wow – finally some backlash on TSA’s “Security Theater”.

At the bottom of the infographic is the following:

The TSA has spent roughly $40 billion dollars. Homeland Security’s acting inspector general, Richard Skinner, says: “The ability of TSA screeners to stop prohibited items from being carried through the sterile areas of the airports fared no better than the performance of screeners prior to September 11, 2001.”

In all fairness, I don’t know the date of the above quote. The infographic appears to have listed a large number of sources. I think it is well done.

Via: Criminal Justice Degree

Misleading Statistics

Neal Levene — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:40:57 +0000

It is important when looking at statistics to consider alternate hypothesis.

This graph shows that people over 80 are the safest group of drivers. Drivers under 20 are safer than those between 20 and 24. Right?

The problem with that assumption is that number of accidents does not account for how much driving each of the groups do. Consider this other graph.

Mile for mile, people over 80 have the most accidents followed by those under 20. This graph suggests that up until age 44, a person’s driving improves. After that, there is a decline in safety per mile driven. Over 74, there is a huge jump in accidents per mile driven.

It is important to put numbers in context in order to understand what they say.

Neither graph prove that age is what causes the incident of accidents. There are many alternate hypothesis: location, time of day driving occurs, type of cars driven, and many others.

The above example is from Econoclass.com, where you can find 11 other interesting examples of misleading statistics.

Forgetting Food Safety Bill Infographic – Poorly Executed Infographic

Neal Levene — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 18:43:02 +0000

The infographic to the left takes up a lot of space to say very little. The main point that the graphic makes is that the number $151 billion is larger than $1.6 billion. Putting two numbers on unlabeled axes can be misleading. The scale range can be manipulated to change how dramatic the difference looks. Below, I’ve replotted these two numbers on a different unlabeled axes. The difference between these numbers is less compelling, right?

On my replotted graph, the maximum point of the graph is at $5 trillion. Depending on the subject matter, this maximum might not be ridiculous.

I guess the other assumption this graphic makes is that the Government paying 1.6 billion would eliminate all of the cost associated with foodbourne illness. One would need to assume that this Government bill would be 100% effective in eliminating this cost.

The data sources listed indicate that we have numbers from two different partisan groups. Are these two numbers comparable? The 1.6 billion was proposed to be paid by the Government. I assume the other amount is paid by a combination of payers: medicare, medicaid, individual insurance, individuals, medical write-offs, and other sources. The Government could pay for a lot of things that might reduce the cost of things by a lot. Or have the opposite effect. If the Government bought everyone a new car, would that lower the cost of cars due to economies of scale or raise the cost due to demand and shortage of supplies. Would it cause widespread closure of auto-dealers since people looking for new cars would be so much diminished. Any of these things could occur.

Obviously, this infographic was designed with a point of view. Nothing is wrong with that, but whenever I see graphics like this, I start asking questions. Can a complicated issue like this be boiled down to comparing those two numbers in this way. It seems like the space could be better used.

[Infographic Source: GOOD - which by the way typically presents infographics that are usually quite good]

Visualizing YouTube Network Packet Exchange

Neal Levene — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:08:40 +0000

An animated look at network packet traffic.

The following short video is a visualization of the network packets of a YouTube video, slowed down 12 times.

Each flying circle represents a network packet. The small green ones are control packets: ACK, SYN, etc. The larger blue ones are data packets. The data is from a real tcpdump of the first 4 seconds of Rick Astley’s music video.

Packet Flight: RickRoll @ 12X from Carlos Bueno on Vimeo.

Nathalie Miebach – Data as Art Sculptures

Neal Levene — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:02:30 +0000

3D Musical Score of the passing of Hurricane Noel through the Gulf of Maine, Nov 6-8, 2007

Nathalie Miebach is an artist who makes sculptures from complex data.

My work focuses on the intersection of art and science and the visual articulation of scientific observations. Using the methodologies and processes of both disciplines, I translate scientific data related to astronomy, ecology and meteorology woven sculptures. My method of translation is principally that of weaving – in particular basket weaving – as it provides me with a simple yet highly effective grid through which to interpret data in three-dimensional space. By staying true to the numbers, these woven pieces tread an uneasy divide between functioning both as sculptures in space as well as instruments that could be used in the actual environment from which the data originates.

The piece looks at the relationship between barmetric pressure, cloud cover, soil temperature readings and bird sightings during a 30-day period on Herring Cove Beach, Cape Cod.

[via Christian Science Monitor]