Weighing Statistics

The next time that someone tells you "statistics show you" - remember that caution is advised.

If you'd like to see an example of how statistical data can be distorted, then read this.

Comments

[jammen]

Not distorted per the researchers
The study itself says:

“To obtain such information,
we interviewed residents of battered
women’s shelters—women who were
likely to be representative of those who have experienced substantial amounts of violence and who have had various objects used against them by an intimate partner.”

Volokh objects to that assumption, but then makes up his own:

"It stands to reason that many of them would have been deliberately threatened with death or serious injury at some point, which may be what led them to flee in the first instance; they are probably more likely than the typical person, including the typical domestic violence victim, to have been threatened in an especially serious way. And it stands to reason that in those homes where a gun is present, and the woman’s partner is willing to deliberately threaten the woman enough to cause her to flee, at least one of the threats will have involved the gun."

It's no wonder why he calls his blog a conspiracy.

[Peg]

Are you kidding?

Nowhere did Volokh fault the study itself. He was critical of Brady for citing the study - then not being straightforward and clear about from where the statistics came.

Volokh was only highlighting why the stats from a woman's shelter would likely vary a great deal from statistics for the population at large.

Try reading it again.

[Peg]

Moreover ... Volokh is absolutely clear that he is making NO judgment calls about the study:

even if it’s sound on its own terms, a matter on which I won’t opine here

Guess you missed this part....

[jammen]

Peg, I have read the material. Have you?

From the Brady Campaign:
In two thirds of battered women’s households that contained a firearm, the intimate partner used the gun against the woman, usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4 percent) or to shoot at her (5.1 percent). (Sorenson and Wiebe, p. 1412).

From the study:
we interviewed residents of 84 battered
women’s shelters in California—women who were likely to be representative of those who have experienced substantial amounts of violence. (emphasis added)

So the Brady Campaign quote the study and page#, but that's not good enough for the tinfoil hat conspiracy people.

So if you have issue with the researchers underlying assumption feel free to contest it, but understand your opinion may not carry the same weight as that of the scientists who have devoted their lives and careers to the field.

[Peg]

I did read it again.

How on earth can one extrapolate SOLELY from women in shelters what happens in all homes with battered women? Isn't it clear that women who go to shelters are a subset of all households with battered women?

Shouldn't there be SOME evidence at all of what happens in households with women who are battered - yet, they never go to a shelter? You don't think that there MIGHT be a difference between these two groups?

Not sure what to say. We view evidence with different eyes.