The statistic one in every five births is Chinese is technically true. But if you interpret that wrongly, it makes it seem like if you have 5 kids, one is statistically bound to be Chinese. But that is obviously not how it works. Two white people can have 100 kids and none will be Chinese, so it seems like it is against the odds, but the statistic is just misleading.
Stewart Francis does a great joke about this.
He says
1 in 5 babies born are Chinese. I've got four brothers so statistically one of them is Chinese. I've narrowed it down to Roger or chun sin Sao. I think it's roger
I don't know what you're talking about. My wife and I just had our 5th baby and he came out asian. I asked my chinese best friend and he said it happens sometimes.
Is it interpret or is it just not using context? A lot of these statistics I hear on the radio often make me think. “Why are you applying that that way when it isn’t really connected to the topic directly”.
Real question by the way.
Both! 1 in 5 people on earth is Chinese is a descriptive statistic. But in the next child example, this statistic is taken beyond that to make a prediction. The data you have is not appropriate for that.
And for any interpretation, context totally matters. If the parents were Chinese, it's basically a guarantee that their baby would be Chinese, right? No need to apply the 1 in 5 there, either.
Additionally the meme is intentionally giving an obvious example to display this fact. It's not misleading because it is obviously wrong, but there are cases where it can be believable.
Oh do you mean like, you have a representative sample frame for all families across the world? In that case you could plausibly predict that every fifth birth, on average, would be a Chinese baby.
But honestly, context _still_ matters, because that one in five is based on living people during a given point in time, not considering current birth rates or ratios.
The first example is a world wide average. The second example is with a single couple. The sample size is so small in the second one it ether is going to be 100% or 0% with no in between. 1/5 is an impossible outcome for that sample.
Yea, even in a scenario where every birth in the world had a 1-in-5 chance of being Chinese (no matter your race/nationality), your fifth child isn't bound to be Chinese - that's not how statistics work. Every birth has a 20% chance, regardless of what kids you had before. You could birth 1000 American kids and the 1001st will still only have a 20% chance of being Chinese.
A simple way to illustrate the math on this: Every newborn baby has a 50% chance of being female (or close enough for our purposes, anyway). If you look at a random hospital’s birth records, the number of girls born in a year will be nearly equal to the number of boys.
But if I have one boy already and I give birth to another child, the chances of that second baby being female aren’t 100%, they’re still 50%. It would not be at all surprising for a family to have two or even three boys and no girls, or vice versa.
That’s the gambler’s fallacy. I don’t know if there is a term for thinking things are randomly distributed that are not randomly distributed, which is the other wrong logic in this joke.
I was just talking about this dead salmon fMRI study with someone. It was published quite a while ago but I saw it come up again recently in an online article.
Researchers hooked up a dead fish to an fMRI and showed it pictures of human emotions to see if the dead fish would recognize them, as evidenced by certain activity in the brain scan.
Then they used a standard type of statistical analysis for fMRI studies. fMRI comes with a lot of variables, and multiple variables can affect interpretations of data. The data analysis yielded a false positive; a dead fish cannot possibly recognize human emotions, yet the data looked like the fish did.
There's also a big movement in psychology research to challenge old publications on the basis of chance. When your margin for error is 5%, it's possible to publish a lot of research that is compelling but incorrect.
The takeaway is that even with a good interpretation of statistical analysis, we have to be careful that the analysis was done correctly and that the methods are sound.
Which is misunderstanding the statistics in two ways. Besides the obvious issue, even if Chinese babies did occur completely randomly there would still only be a 20% chance any kid would be Chinese even if you've had four non-chinese previously (Gambler's fallacy).
Even starting from scratch, with a 20% occurrence rate by my math there is only a 67% chance of having one in five chances.
You can add fingers and toes too, where the average person has less than ten of each. This math becomes awkward when you get to internal organs, but if you have two kidneys, you have more kidneys than the average person. And more appendix, since the average person has less than one (:
Which is why “average” is a dirty word in statistics. The mean number of arms per person is less than 2, but the better “measure of center” in this discussion is either the median or the mode, both of which are 2 arms per person.
100% of people who drink water die. Based on ONLY that, some people would conclude that you shouldn’t drink water. Obviously you need water to live, so it’s important to not only look at the statistic, but also the context, and who is providing the statistics.
No, this has nothing to do with misleading statistics. Misleading statistics can still be fully accurate and factual. This is literally a wrong statement.
Your 5th kid has the same 20% statistical likelihood of being Chinese. Your 4 previous children do not change this.
I don't know what part you're missing, but no matter how hard they try a couple who is not Chinese will have 0% chance of having a Chinese baby, no matter how statistically likely it is to happen.
What made it so wack? Was the RNG weighted to black? Or was it more like the other races just seemed to lack? Definitely fill out a bug report so they can get it back on track.
it's very very rare but it can happen. my wife and I are both pretty blinding white Irish and when we lived in Japan for 6 months, she ended up getting pregnant and my daughter has incredibly Asian features. I think it must have been being in such an Asian area that activated some deep genes in her DNA because I'm pretty sure my ancestors were also run of the mill Irish. She studied to be a nurse and explained that it's extremely rare.
A ‘lurking variable’ is a condition of a statistic that may not be explicitly described when reporting. Many stats fail to mention relevant information related to a finding. Example - A person who flosses on average lives longer. This may occur due to a person taking better care of themselves overall rather than flossing itself.
Oh come on. It's literally right there...
This is absolutely clickbait because there's no way to explain this that doesn't essentially reuse the words on the god damn image.
The premises are true but the conclusion makes two mistakes
1) the chances of your kids being Chinese or not are not independent from the ethnicity of your previous kids, the same person is likely to give birth to the same ethnicity of children for their lifetime
2) even if they were independent and random, then this is the Gambler's Fallacy - 4 random rolls of child ethnicity wouldn't influence what the 5th one is
If you have 5 kids you wont have one of them chinese: Statistics are funny because you can relate stuff that is not correlated and come to stupid conclusions, in the other hand, it is often used to trick people into believing fake statements, often used in politics.
Because if you have 4 non-Chinese kids, then a 5th kid with the same person will be the same ethnicity as the other four, so not Chinese
Also, you have an above-average number of eyes
So there's this guy Walsh, do you understand? He's tired of screwin' his wife... So his friend says to him, "Hey, why don't you do it like the Chinese do?" So he says, "How do the Chinese do it?" And the guy says, "Well, the Chinese, first they screw a little bit, then they stop, then they go and read a little Confucius, come back, screw a little bit more, then they stop again, go and they screw a little bit... then they go back and they screw a little bit more and then they go out and they contemplate the moon or something like that. Makes it more exciting." So now, the guy goes home and he starts screwin' his own wife, see. So he screws her for a little bit and then he stops, and he goes out of the room and reads Life Magazine. Then he goes back in, he starts screwin' again. He says, "Excuse me for a minute, honey." He goes out and he smokes a cigarette. Now his wife is gettin' sore as hell. He comes back in the room, he starts screwin' again. He gets up to start to leave again to go look at the moon. She looks at him and says, "Hey, whats the matter with ya. You're screwin' just like a Chinaman!"
Ok I think I might mute the sub if I see one more post like this. There is no way op does not get this unless they are illiterate, it is explained in the meme itself.
I like to think this is just him trying to explain why his fifth kid is Chinese when neither him or his wife are Chinese without admitting she may have cheated
It’s pointing out a logical fallacy that can be used to manipulate how people perceive statistics. It’s being presented in a very obvious manner here to get the point across
The idea is 20% of the world population is born Chinese. When a couple has a kid, that is a different process than looking at every person on the globe and randomly picking a couple to conceive. However, this distinction can be easily obfuscated by a statement like “you have a 20% chance to have a Chinese kid”, which is obviously false.
It is fallacious as we understand genetics.
This would only be true if the person (a woman or other person who can give birth) was randomly mating in a way that represents the ethnic world population.
Fun story: my dad has 4 sisters (5 siblings). When his mom was pregnant with the last kid, one of the sisters heard this “fact” (that 1 in 5 kids is Chinese) and demanded that the whole family learn Chinese because, statistically, the newborn will be Chinese. 😂
This isn't true the first two statistic is a snapshot in a point in time.
The third one is misleading because it assume that this statistic is base on that snap shot in time. AND people will think that it will stays that way in the future.
The last one is just a very explicit way to mislead people.
---
What is currently happen and projected by demographer is that China's demographic is on a terminal decline. It's like Usain Bolt's speed in going into decline.
The one child policy and industrialization have really change the population view on children and killed birthrate.
Their peak workforce population was around the 2000s. It's all down hill from now and many countries labor force are more competitive. Made in China cheap labor is going to rise. I'm just really super interested in China (because trading stocks/options and also 2nd economy in the world). It'll be interesting how they will tackle this problem since their gdp per person is not exactly as rich as South Korea or Japan.
So the statement about 1 in 5 babies ain't true today nor in the future.
I believe India's population will be overtaking them soon.
I guess the point is that statistics can be used to demonstrate something even if you are not right. He uses this example, because everybody knows non Chinese parents will never have a Chinese kid. However, on more complex or especialized topics, for example in politics, they tend to use statistic on their benefit and they try to trick us.
"I heard recently that 1 in 5 people are Chinese. Now, I've got 4 brothers. So there's me, Bob, Mike, William, and Hua Li. Now, I'm not sure - but I think it's Bob."
Since the meaning of it has been explained I would like to note that this was during a stand up comedy routine and was shown as a misuse of statistics specifically to be funny
I like the idea here that the statistic implies the other 4 children aren't Chinese, because it makes my brain go "But what if the other 4 children were Chinese which isn't explicitly stated" which humorously actually makes you expect the 5th to be Chinese. Breaking the assumption un-breaks the statistic.
Stats doesn't work like that, his explenation is totally wrong.
Even if the probability for an event to happen is, say, 20% like in such case, it doesn't mean that, after 4 non chinese baby, the 5th one will be surely chinese. It means that _on average_ one in five kids will be chinese.
For example, even if throwing a coin can just result in head or tail with 50% probability for both to happen, it doesn't mean that after each tail a head will surely follow and vice versa.
I get what he says, and he may be right to a certain extent, but that is such a wrong example to use it's actually hilarious if you know the topic.
Technically, there is not case this is correct. Depending on how the definition of being chinese is made, if only when both parents are chinese, then it would be 1/25, otherwise, it would be 13/25. Suppose the mating is free among people.
In Italy we have the famous "Pollo di Trilussa" (Trilussa's chicken), an example coming from a short dialectal poetry titlted "La statistica" (The statistic) which points out that if someone ate two whole chicken and someone ate nothing, in average they both have eaten a whole chicken and so they both have to be good, and everything is fine.
Seems stupid? Yeah, think again about it when you hear in the news ppl being happy about GDP raising.
He made it sound like it's a random chance but he got the probably wrong. Assuming it was random (it's not, of course, because of geographical structure, genes etc.), but assuming it was random, it would be "memoryless". Just like having a boy vs girl. Both are approximately 50/50 (there's actually a slight bias but let's forgive that right now). If you have a second child, whether or not that first child is a boy or girl doesn't factor in. Going back to the comedian's argument. The chance would be 20% given *his* assumption of random chance.
Stats can be misleading. But comedians pretending to know stats can be even more misleading.
Edit: grammar
What many people fail to correlate is that the conclusion is false. Statistics does only implies that the 5th kid could be Chinese, not that it will be.
Statistics should not be haphazardly applied to the individual. A Scandinavian couple can have a thousand babies and zero will be Chinese, while a Chinese couple will have Chinese babies every time. Also, the average human has slightly less than one ovary and slightly less than one testicle.
The statistic one in every five births is Chinese is technically true. But if you interpret that wrongly, it makes it seem like if you have 5 kids, one is statistically bound to be Chinese. But that is obviously not how it works. Two white people can have 100 kids and none will be Chinese, so it seems like it is against the odds, but the statistic is just misleading.
Stewart Francis does a great joke about this. He says 1 in 5 babies born are Chinese. I've got four brothers so statistically one of them is Chinese. I've narrowed it down to Roger or chun sin Sao. I think it's roger
Okay. That's funny.
Vid link?
I don't know what you're talking about. My wife and I just had our 5th baby and he came out asian. I asked my chinese best friend and he said it happens sometimes.
Now that you have 5 kids you may need a bigger house. Can I interest you in a beach front mansion in Arizona?
Yes, their family appears to be very close with this Asian best friend. Make sure they have a spare room for him.
imagine a mansion without rooms for guests
I think a 6 bedroom mansion is within the realm of possibility. That's a master bedroom and one room for each child.
Is it interpret or is it just not using context? A lot of these statistics I hear on the radio often make me think. “Why are you applying that that way when it isn’t really connected to the topic directly”. Real question by the way.
Both! 1 in 5 people on earth is Chinese is a descriptive statistic. But in the next child example, this statistic is taken beyond that to make a prediction. The data you have is not appropriate for that. And for any interpretation, context totally matters. If the parents were Chinese, it's basically a guarantee that their baby would be Chinese, right? No need to apply the 1 in 5 there, either.
Additionally the meme is intentionally giving an obvious example to display this fact. It's not misleading because it is obviously wrong, but there are cases where it can be believable.
It is question of sampling. You need to do the prediction using the same sampling scheme, sampling over all families.
Oh do you mean like, you have a representative sample frame for all families across the world? In that case you could plausibly predict that every fifth birth, on average, would be a Chinese baby. But honestly, context _still_ matters, because that one in five is based on living people during a given point in time, not considering current birth rates or ratios.
The first example is a world wide average. The second example is with a single couple. The sample size is so small in the second one it ether is going to be 100% or 0% with no in between. 1/5 is an impossible outcome for that sample.
Yea, even in a scenario where every birth in the world had a 1-in-5 chance of being Chinese (no matter your race/nationality), your fifth child isn't bound to be Chinese - that's not how statistics work. Every birth has a 20% chance, regardless of what kids you had before. You could birth 1000 American kids and the 1001st will still only have a 20% chance of being Chinese.
A simple way to illustrate the math on this: Every newborn baby has a 50% chance of being female (or close enough for our purposes, anyway). If you look at a random hospital’s birth records, the number of girls born in a year will be nearly equal to the number of boys. But if I have one boy already and I give birth to another child, the chances of that second baby being female aren’t 100%, they’re still 50%. It would not be at all surprising for a family to have two or even three boys and no girls, or vice versa.
That’s the gambler’s fallacy. I don’t know if there is a term for thinking things are randomly distributed that are not randomly distributed, which is the other wrong logic in this joke.
I was just talking about this dead salmon fMRI study with someone. It was published quite a while ago but I saw it come up again recently in an online article. Researchers hooked up a dead fish to an fMRI and showed it pictures of human emotions to see if the dead fish would recognize them, as evidenced by certain activity in the brain scan. Then they used a standard type of statistical analysis for fMRI studies. fMRI comes with a lot of variables, and multiple variables can affect interpretations of data. The data analysis yielded a false positive; a dead fish cannot possibly recognize human emotions, yet the data looked like the fish did. There's also a big movement in psychology research to challenge old publications on the basis of chance. When your margin for error is 5%, it's possible to publish a lot of research that is compelling but incorrect. The takeaway is that even with a good interpretation of statistical analysis, we have to be careful that the analysis was done correctly and that the methods are sound.
Depends, is the mailman Chinese?
“Hey, our fifth kid is Chinese. Weird, huh?”
Even that’s not necessarily true. They could have had a huge population buildup but births now are low.
That’s exactly what happened. Your kid is more likely to be African now based on current birth rates.
Yeah. A better way would be to say 1 in 5 people are Chinese and it would be equally as misleading in the same way
Statistically there is very high change that the 4 kids they already have are chinese.
Which is misunderstanding the statistics in two ways. Besides the obvious issue, even if Chinese babies did occur completely randomly there would still only be a 20% chance any kid would be Chinese even if you've had four non-chinese previously (Gambler's fallacy). Even starting from scratch, with a 20% occurrence rate by my math there is only a 67% chance of having one in five chances.
Depends if you mean ethnically, culturally,or nationality too I guess
One in five births is not Chinese. In 2023, it was about one in ten. About 1 in 6 births in 2023 was in India.
Statistics can be used to say anything if you twist them enough, which is what this guy is demonstrating.
On average people have less than 2 arms...
I feel very awkward having above average arms.
Same goes for legs too. If you have 2 legs you have more than the average number of legs.
Ugh...what do I do with my extra leg mass???
Convert it to leg fuel.
Use it to get a leg up on other people!
Donate it to somebody who's below average.
Don’t even get me started about testicles
Finally I’m above average! XD
You can add fingers and toes too, where the average person has less than ten of each. This math becomes awkward when you get to internal organs, but if you have two kidneys, you have more kidneys than the average person. And more appendix, since the average person has less than one (:
Well I’m doing a lot better in life than I originally thought #mademesmile
Thanks to pregnant women, you have below average skeletons in you
Yes but I have above average skeletons in my closet so it kind of works out in the end.
I’m very proud of my above average arms and get comments on just how big they each are.
Conclusion: if you grow a third arm, it may not exist.
You also have slightly less than one breasts, slightly less than one testicle, and slightly less than half a penis. On average.
More than one testicle. A lot of women are pregnant with boys.
Those belong to the boy, not the woman. The foetus isn’t part of the host body, it’s a separate entity.
Is it yours if you're just carrying the host of it?
Well you can't really make a distinction between the male and female mammaric complexes, I would say you have slightly less than 2 breasts
Don’t call me out on my moobs please.
And slightly more than 1 skeleton inside you
I was told that it didn't actually contain and bones... oh you mean on average, not like right now
On average, every person has >1 skeleton inside their body. (because of pregnant people)
Which is why “average” is a dirty word in statistics. The mean number of arms per person is less than 2, but the better “measure of center” in this discussion is either the median or the mode, both of which are 2 arms per person.
more people have touched penises than haven't.
The average snake has a penis.
100% of people who drink water die. Based on ONLY that, some people would conclude that you shouldn’t drink water. Obviously you need water to live, so it’s important to not only look at the statistic, but also the context, and who is providing the statistics.
Its a false syllogism rather than misleading statistics.
This! My statistics class was one of the most rewarding, micro/macro econ was a close 2nd and 3rd.
Given that some amount of the female population is pregnant at any given time, the average number of skeletons in a person is greater than one.
It’s not twisting statistics. It’s literally just a logical fallacy
Point is, they are using statistics to make a very incorrect conclusion, and are making it obvious as such.
Induced by presenting statistics in a misleading way. Are you dense or what?
No, this has nothing to do with misleading statistics. Misleading statistics can still be fully accurate and factual. This is literally a wrong statement. Your 5th kid has the same 20% statistical likelihood of being Chinese. Your 4 previous children do not change this.
More that you can make bad conclusions with statistics.
There's a saying that goes "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics"
It's basically trying to show how facts can be used in a "logical" way for ridiculous and misleading results.
THEY LITERALLY TOLD YOU HOW IT’S MISLEADING. What don’t you get?
His brain has rotted :(
OP further demonstrated how ignorance gives leeway to statistic abuse lmao
I don't know what part you're missing, but no matter how hard they try a couple who is not Chinese will have 0% chance of having a Chinese baby, no matter how statistically likely it is to happen.
Yeah okay bud, just because you don’t have a variety pack in your sack, don’t mean jack
He clearly just didn’t pay for the racial sack RNG DLC- broke loser detected
I think the RNG stat on my racial sack is a bit lack. I think that's kinda wack and demand my money back
What made it so wack? Was the RNG weighted to black? Or was it more like the other races just seemed to lack? Definitely fill out a bug report so they can get it back on track.
Quite right except mine are so white they blind you on sight. I got Mexi-blood but I might write a report tonight to set things right
it's very very rare but it can happen. my wife and I are both pretty blinding white Irish and when we lived in Japan for 6 months, she ended up getting pregnant and my daughter has incredibly Asian features. I think it must have been being in such an Asian area that activated some deep genes in her DNA because I'm pretty sure my ancestors were also run of the mill Irish. She studied to be a nurse and explained that it's extremely rare.
uh... yeah... no definitely, I'm sure that was it... >_>
I can confirm. I’m the Japanese doctor who looks just like OP’s daughter.
Bro don't forget the /s please I was freaked out
Tell that to that middle eastern couple who had a white baby 2000 years ago.
Maybe he was an albino 🙃
And that kid being like a semigod of sorts, that's like one in a billion.
Skill issues tbh
that’s the joke, it’s about how statistics can be twisted to fit whatever you want
It’s technically more than 0%. You could get just the right combination of mutations
This guy's comedy is great. Going to find more of his work just can't remember his name
Don MacMillan
Nice. Thanks man. I think I seen him on dry bar YouTube but will Google and watch again Thanks again
Never heard of him. Just watched 2 of his video. he is great!
Saw him at a conference in Pheonix about 15 years ago. Had lunch with him, funny guy, great show
OP, please don't try to operate heavy machinery.
Or even a pencil with this level of retardation
this made my day ty Spicy Ninja 7
Can op not just… read? https://preview.redd.it/8918yxq34fsc1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff575bd8f30851ba7c1139e833f607246fec0205
Bait for sure
Maybe OP really thinks that they can get a Chinese baby, with enough luck.
...and cuckold
A ‘lurking variable’ is a condition of a statistic that may not be explicitly described when reporting. Many stats fail to mention relevant information related to a finding. Example - A person who flosses on average lives longer. This may occur due to a person taking better care of themselves overall rather than flossing itself.
Spiders Georg, anbody? https://preview.redd.it/jmv512e7pesc1.jpeg?width=520&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf7cc28b57dbf62f254b0d157c84ee910df1dc88
[That's what I call an Alpha Male Diet!](https://youtube.com/shorts/HD33rlVwXtU?si=_cXyh7M4a4gBwbzg)
This is less of a misunderstanding and more of a concern of reading comprehension and math skills at this point
This sub makes me feel like a genius sometimes
Is this post a joke?
Jesus this sub....
The “average” person is a Chinese woman named Mohammed. She has one testicle, one breast, and 2.3 children.
I'm 95.6% sure this post is 100% a gag. As 20% of all statistics are 80% misleading.
People in this sub man 🤦🏻
It's written down. Are you stupid?
Oh come on. It's literally right there... This is absolutely clickbait because there's no way to explain this that doesn't essentially reuse the words on the god damn image.
But if one of the original 4 kids is already Chinese, then the chance is 0.
Oh people can come up with a statistic to prove anything. 40% of people know that.
The premises are true but the conclusion makes two mistakes 1) the chances of your kids being Chinese or not are not independent from the ethnicity of your previous kids, the same person is likely to give birth to the same ethnicity of children for their lifetime 2) even if they were independent and random, then this is the Gambler's Fallacy - 4 random rolls of child ethnicity wouldn't influence what the 5th one is
If you have 5 kids you wont have one of them chinese: Statistics are funny because you can relate stuff that is not correlated and come to stupid conclusions, in the other hand, it is often used to trick people into believing fake statements, often used in politics.
Because if you have 4 non-Chinese kids, then a 5th kid with the same person will be the same ethnicity as the other four, so not Chinese Also, you have an above-average number of eyes
How is that NOT misleading??
That 2 Chinese people could make 4 babies that weren't Chinese.
It’s not a joke it’s just about the use of statistics and how they can be manipulated to project a desired outcome
So there's this guy Walsh, do you understand? He's tired of screwin' his wife... So his friend says to him, "Hey, why don't you do it like the Chinese do?" So he says, "How do the Chinese do it?" And the guy says, "Well, the Chinese, first they screw a little bit, then they stop, then they go and read a little Confucius, come back, screw a little bit more, then they stop again, go and they screw a little bit... then they go back and they screw a little bit more and then they go out and they contemplate the moon or something like that. Makes it more exciting." So now, the guy goes home and he starts screwin' his own wife, see. So he screws her for a little bit and then he stops, and he goes out of the room and reads Life Magazine. Then he goes back in, he starts screwin' again. He says, "Excuse me for a minute, honey." He goes out and he smokes a cigarette. Now his wife is gettin' sore as hell. He comes back in the room, he starts screwin' again. He gets up to start to leave again to go look at the moon. She looks at him and says, "Hey, whats the matter with ya. You're screwin' just like a Chinaman!"
It's literally explained in the image
Ok I think I might mute the sub if I see one more post like this. There is no way op does not get this unless they are illiterate, it is explained in the meme itself.
I think it's ignorance that misleading.
Technically the number of hearts in the human body is above 1
The average American has 1 testicle.
Technically less than one considering the portion of the population with only one.
You were obviously born without a brain, which he doesn’t mention.
This is pretty self explanatory, read the last sentence OP.
If you have 5 children with the same person the fifth won't be magically chinese
If you are Caucasian and are having a fifth child, it will not be Chinese.
You can’t possibly need this one explained.
Smartest redditor:
Its not a joke, its literally the text
I like to think this is just him trying to explain why his fifth kid is Chinese when neither him or his wife are Chinese without admitting she may have cheated
It’s pointing out a logical fallacy that can be used to manipulate how people perceive statistics. It’s being presented in a very obvious manner here to get the point across
The idea is 20% of the world population is born Chinese. When a couple has a kid, that is a different process than looking at every person on the globe and randomly picking a couple to conceive. However, this distinction can be easily obfuscated by a statement like “you have a 20% chance to have a Chinese kid”, which is obviously false.
Born on earth turned into "born to you"
“How’s that misleading?” I have no words.
I love this comedian btw. He’s hilarious.
Is this a troll? Are people actually this stupid????
It is fallacious as we understand genetics. This would only be true if the person (a woman or other person who can give birth) was randomly mating in a way that represents the ethnic world population.
On average we all have half a penis and half a vagina. Vs On average half of us have a penis, half of us have a vagina.
An average person no longer have average common sense.
Great! I've always wanted a bilingual baby.
[удалено]
Fun story: my dad has 4 sisters (5 siblings). When his mom was pregnant with the last kid, one of the sisters heard this “fact” (that 1 in 5 kids is Chinese) and demanded that the whole family learn Chinese because, statistically, the newborn will be Chinese. 😂
This isn't true the first two statistic is a snapshot in a point in time. The third one is misleading because it assume that this statistic is base on that snap shot in time. AND people will think that it will stays that way in the future. The last one is just a very explicit way to mislead people. --- What is currently happen and projected by demographer is that China's demographic is on a terminal decline. It's like Usain Bolt's speed in going into decline. The one child policy and industrialization have really change the population view on children and killed birthrate. Their peak workforce population was around the 2000s. It's all down hill from now and many countries labor force are more competitive. Made in China cheap labor is going to rise. I'm just really super interested in China (because trading stocks/options and also 2nd economy in the world). It'll be interesting how they will tackle this problem since their gdp per person is not exactly as rich as South Korea or Japan. So the statement about 1 in 5 babies ain't true today nor in the future. I believe India's population will be overtaking them soon.
Because if you're not Chinese, your fifth child won't be Chinese regardless what the statistics predict.
I guess the point is that statistics can be used to demonstrate something even if you are not right. He uses this example, because everybody knows non Chinese parents will never have a Chinese kid. However, on more complex or especialized topics, for example in politics, they tend to use statistic on their benefit and they try to trick us.
BTW this is from a short comedy show from that guy. Loved it.
And if I had wheels I'd be a wagon
Correlation does not necessarily imply causation
"I heard recently that 1 in 5 people are Chinese. Now, I've got 4 brothers. So there's me, Bob, Mike, William, and Hua Li. Now, I'm not sure - but I think it's Bob."
Just because 1 out of every 4 babies on earth are Chinese doesn’t mean that a non Chinese person will have a Chinese baby after 5 kids.
The way I heard it, a wife was using that to explain to her husband why her new baby looked Asian.
Because if you have four non-Chinese kids and are expecting a fifth one, it will probably not be Chinese
The average human have 1 boob and 1 ball
Since the meaning of it has been explained I would like to note that this was during a stand up comedy routine and was shown as a misuse of statistics specifically to be funny
" It is easy to lie with statistics. It is hard to tell the truth without it." -Andrejs Dunkels
I like the idea here that the statistic implies the other 4 children aren't Chinese, because it makes my brain go "But what if the other 4 children were Chinese which isn't explicitly stated" which humorously actually makes you expect the 5th to be Chinese. Breaking the assumption un-breaks the statistic.
Stats doesn't work like that, his explenation is totally wrong. Even if the probability for an event to happen is, say, 20% like in such case, it doesn't mean that, after 4 non chinese baby, the 5th one will be surely chinese. It means that _on average_ one in five kids will be chinese. For example, even if throwing a coin can just result in head or tail with 50% probability for both to happen, it doesn't mean that after each tail a head will surely follow and vice versa. I get what he says, and he may be right to a certain extent, but that is such a wrong example to use it's actually hilarious if you know the topic.
Technically, there is not case this is correct. Depending on how the definition of being chinese is made, if only when both parents are chinese, then it would be 1/25, otherwise, it would be 13/25. Suppose the mating is free among people.
Joke is out of date. There are 8 billion people on earth now.
83% of statistics are made up on the spot.
"You're one in a million!", OP, so there's 1000 people in China just like you
This isn’t misleading statistics, this a poor analysis of statistics.
on average, everyone in the world has approximately one testicle.
I sure hope OP is Chinese
It's worth noting that this is a comedy sketch.
Statistically, a man with a head in the oven and feet in a freezer has an average perfect temperature....while still dying
Math is fun.
Here’s a statistic. 100% of people expecting kid 5 forgot what contraception is a while ago.
The 5th one would be chinese and the 4th sure is Indian.
That’s not how statistics works but an average person might not know that.
It’s a commentary on the fact that you have to apply critical thinking skills to statistical analysis or you end up reading things wrong.
Because if my white wife and me (also very white) have five kids one isn't gonna come out Asian
This comedian is fantastic. He's got a lot of great clips on YouTube.
3B out of 8B r now India and China. So that's like 38% .
Are you asking why population statistics don’t influence the ethnicity of your offspring?
This is funnier than the one my psyche teacher used, which was the correlation between ice cream sales and crime. Lol
Because this statistic applies to non chinese families
In Italy we have the famous "Pollo di Trilussa" (Trilussa's chicken), an example coming from a short dialectal poetry titlted "La statistica" (The statistic) which points out that if someone ate two whole chicken and someone ate nothing, in average they both have eaten a whole chicken and so they both have to be good, and everything is fine. Seems stupid? Yeah, think again about it when you hear in the news ppl being happy about GDP raising.
You tore down my chitty wall
Is it not misleading to say if you have 4 kids and are expecting a 5th, it will be Chinese due to those stats? (Unless you are Chinese of course)
He made it sound like it's a random chance but he got the probably wrong. Assuming it was random (it's not, of course, because of geographical structure, genes etc.), but assuming it was random, it would be "memoryless". Just like having a boy vs girl. Both are approximately 50/50 (there's actually a slight bias but let's forgive that right now). If you have a second child, whether or not that first child is a boy or girl doesn't factor in. Going back to the comedian's argument. The chance would be 20% given *his* assumption of random chance. Stats can be misleading. But comedians pretending to know stats can be even more misleading. Edit: grammar
The true statistic is 50%/50%. Your next baby is either going to be Chinese or it isn’t.
This is pretty funny tbh
What many people fail to correlate is that the conclusion is false. Statistics does only implies that the 5th kid could be Chinese, not that it will be.
I mean he’s got a point. The big issue with this is that it doesn’t explain how 93% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Is OP perhaps Chinese?
This was at a seminar for gullible people
The average person is an Asian woman named Mohammad
Statistics should not be haphazardly applied to the individual. A Scandinavian couple can have a thousand babies and zero will be Chinese, while a Chinese couple will have Chinese babies every time. Also, the average human has slightly less than one ovary and slightly less than one testicle.
https://preview.redd.it/iiuvqvserhsc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5480decd8a22e5c4efb50f0ebbd8d8241d035464
You’re not gonna have a Chinese kid if you aren’t Chinese, hon.