Welcome to Gaia! ::

GuardianCentauri
The rose in spring
Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

What if you unknowingly make a mistake with your calculations? Your numbers could be incorrect.

At least when groups of people work together, they typically double check each others' work. Hundreds of statistics do that by verifying the legitimacy of the data.

Statistics don't use accurate data. Also I redo the math to double check. I have 100% faith in myself. When one has trust in one self, then they cast away every insecurity.
Sexual Innuendo's avatar

Quotable Conversationalist

7,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Tycoon 200
  • Popular Thread 100
The rose in spring
Sexual Innuendo
The rose in spring
Kiumaru
The rose in spring
Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.


They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself
Even you have bias. No matter how much you "trust yourself," you still have bias.

People have bias myself included, but numbers do not. Numbers only lie when a human favricates them. Numbers are consistant. 2+2 always equals four, numbers have no emotion, they do not change without reason and they do not abandon you. Humans however are illogical and inconsistent (Not to mention backstabbers). For example, if I have 20 florescent lightbulbs in my office and they run for 8 hours for 7 days while each bulb is 40 watts, then my office will be running 198 killowatts in May. That number doesn't change. If it costs me .15 cents per killowatt an hour, then those lights will be costing me $29.70 that month. That doesn't change unless a bulb goes out or the company changes the price. Such money adds up to $311.6 per year assuming there is work 365 days a year. That is the evidence I am talking about. If you have doubts, then I can give you the numbers.
Obviously we're talking about statistics here. And you think all statistics are fake or untrustworthy, except the ones you create?
Sexual Innuendo
The rose in spring
Sexual Innuendo
The rose in spring
Kiumaru
The rose in spring
Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.


They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself
Even you have bias. No matter how much you "trust yourself," you still have bias.

People have bias myself included, but numbers do not. Numbers only lie when a human favricates them. Numbers are consistant. 2+2 always equals four, numbers have no emotion, they do not change without reason and they do not abandon you. Humans however are illogical and inconsistent (Not to mention backstabbers). For example, if I have 20 florescent lightbulbs in my office and they run for 8 hours for 7 days while each bulb is 40 watts, then my office will be running 198 killowatts in May. That number doesn't change. If it costs me .15 cents per killowatt an hour, then those lights will be costing me $29.70 that month. That doesn't change unless a bulb goes out or the company changes the price. Such money adds up to $311.6 per year assuming there is work 365 days a year. That is the evidence I am talking about. If you have doubts, then I can give you the numbers.
Obviously we're talking about statistics here. And you think all statistics are fake or untrustworthy, except the ones you create?

Because I myself made it and I trust myself. Anyway, let me elaborate since you need the numbers.

There are 31 days in may, I have 20 florescent bulbs in the office, they run 8 hours a day at 40 watts per hour

So we have 20*40 = 800 watts an hour
800*8 = 6,400 watts a day. So 6.4 kilowatts
6.4*31 = 198.4 kilowatts in May. Rounded for simplicity, 198
198*.15 (Cost kwh) = $29.70 for that month.

Then we do the annual math. Not every month has 31 days, Februrary, April, June, September, November do not. There are 3 days missing in Feb
29.70*12 = 356.4

3+1+1+1+1=7 for days missing

7*6.4= 44.8 kwh fewer


356.4 - 44.8 = 311.6
The rose in spring
Kiumaru
The rose in spring
Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.


They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself


So every time your family goes out of your sight, they disappear? Because you can't trust anyone but yourself to verify that they're still existing.
Kiumaru
The rose in spring
Kiumaru
The rose in spring
Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.


They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself


So every time your family goes out of your sight, they disappear? Because you can't trust anyone but yourself to verify that they're still existing.

My parents are poor slackers, my sister is a druggie, my brother is a misogynist and my bf abandoned me. I couldn't trust them further than I could throw them. And besides I have no proof any of them still exist.
La Veuve Zin's avatar

Rainbow Smoker

5,650 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Ultimate Player 200
theothermanoverthere
Kiumaru
theothermanoverthere
im saying we should take the person who can get the job done better.

What you are not looking at is that more men are built to do the jobs the dominate.


The fact that men dominate certain jobs does not mean that men are built to do those jobs. For instance, I don't see how men are simply "built" for positions in government.
I should have been more clear i mean jobs that involve heavy lifting and labor intensive work.


Given that heavy lifting is supposed to be done with one's legs, not one's upper body, that would mean women are generally more suited to doing so. But unless we're talking a few hundred pounds, there's not much preventing both sexes from being equally suited for such a job.
The rose in spring
My parents are poor slackers, my sister is a druggie, my brother is a misogynist and my bf abandoned me. I couldn't trust them further than I could throw them. And besides I have no proof any of them still exist.


Problem is, why are you sure that you aren't yourself biased? You say that you have faith in yourself, but I'm sure that you have your own agendas and your own biases.
La Veuve Zin
theothermanoverthere
Kiumaru
theothermanoverthere
im saying we should take the person who can get the job done better.

What you are not looking at is that more men are built to do the jobs the dominate.


The fact that men dominate certain jobs does not mean that men are built to do those jobs. For instance, I don't see how men are simply "built" for positions in government.
I should have been more clear i mean jobs that involve heavy lifting and labor intensive work.


Given that heavy lifting is supposed to be done with one's legs, not one's upper body, that would mean women are generally more suited to doing so. But unless we're talking a few hundred pounds, there's not much preventing both sexes from being equally suited for such a job.
Let me ask you this how meany girls vs guys do you know that can move 90lb continuesly?
GuardianCentauri's avatar

Loyal Friend

The rose in spring
Statistics don't use accurate data. Also I redo the math to double check. I have 100% faith in myself. When one has trust in one self, then they cast away every insecurity.

The whole point of having multiple people go over the numbers and multiple studies is to try to reduce the number of any inaccuracies. The aim isn't absolute perfection but to bring down the margin of error to an acceptable level.

As for your own calculations, are you saying that you think you never make mistakes? You've noted how even computers can make occasional mistakes (although more often because of errors human beings made when programming them), so surely you're not suggesting that you don't.

Furthermore, how would you go about calculating something as complex as a wage gap? If you feel that you can't trust anyone else's numbers, then you'd have to start completely from scratch. Can you possibly go to a large number of companies in a wide range of occupational fields across the country and/or across the world? Could you afford it? Such impracticalities are just yet another reason that people work together to generate statistics and compare them with each other to try to root out errors and biases.
GuardianCentauri
The rose in spring
Statistics don't use accurate data. Also I redo the math to double check. I have 100% faith in myself. When one has trust in one self, then they cast away every insecurity.

The whole point of having multiple people go over the numbers and multiple studies is to try to reduce the number of any inaccuracies. The aim isn't absolute perfection but to bring down the margin of error to an acceptable level.

As for your own calculations, are you saying that you think you never make mistakes? You've noted how even computers can make occasional mistakes (although more often because of errors human beings made when programming them), so surely you're not suggesting that you don't.

Furthermore, how would you go about calculating something as complex as a wage gap? If you feel that you can't trust anyone else's numbers, then you'd have to start completely from scratch. Can you possibly go to a large number of companies in a wide range of occupational fields across the country and/or across the world? Could you afford it? Such impracticalities are just yet another reason that people work together to generate statistics and compare them with each other to try to root out errors and biases.

The only friend you need in life is you. The only person you can trust is you. People always lie. And warping statistics can always be done effectively, even doing so in ways that work with Benford's Law.
The rose in spring
GuardianCentauri
The rose in spring
Statistics don't use accurate data. Also I redo the math to double check. I have 100% faith in myself. When one has trust in one self, then they cast away every insecurity.

The whole point of having multiple people go over the numbers and multiple studies is to try to reduce the number of any inaccuracies. The aim isn't absolute perfection but to bring down the margin of error to an acceptable level.

As for your own calculations, are you saying that you think you never make mistakes? You've noted how even computers can make occasional mistakes (although more often because of errors human beings made when programming them), so surely you're not suggesting that you don't.

Furthermore, how would you go about calculating something as complex as a wage gap? If you feel that you can't trust anyone else's numbers, then you'd have to start completely from scratch. Can you possibly go to a large number of companies in a wide range of occupational fields across the country and/or across the world? Could you afford it? Such impracticalities are just yet another reason that people work together to generate statistics and compare them with each other to try to root out errors and biases.

The only friend you need in life is you. The only person you can trust is you. People always lie. And warping statistics can always be done effectively, even doing so in ways that work with Benford's Law.


People can lie to themselves. Does that mean we can't even trust ourselves? Is no one trustworthy?
GuardianCentauri's avatar

Loyal Friend

The rose in spring
The only friend you need in life is you. The only person you can trust is you. People always lie. And warping statistics can always be done effectively, even doing so in ways that work with Benford's Law.

I sympathize with some of the experiences and what not that you briefly described above, but can't you see how your belief that people always lie presents your perspective with a major bias in and of itself?

Also, there's a logical paradox here. If I am to take your words for granted, people always lie. That means that you are lying, which means that your statement that people always lie is... a lie.

You didn't answer my questions about whether or not you feel that you can avoid all mistakes and what solution you would come up with to calculate wage gap all by yourself.



The rose in spring
Sexual Innuendo
The rose in spring
People have bias myself included, but numbers do not. Numbers only lie when a human favricates them. Numbers are consistant. 2+2 always equals four, numbers have no emotion, they do not change without reason and they do not abandon you. Humans however are illogical and inconsistent (Not to mention backstabbers). For example, if I have 20 florescent lightbulbs in my office and they run for 8 hours for 7 days while each bulb is 40 watts, then my office will be running 198 killowatts in May. That number doesn't change. If it costs me .15 cents per killowatt an hour, then those lights will be costing me $29.70 that month. That doesn't change unless a bulb goes out or the company changes the price. Such money adds up to $311.6 per year assuming there is work 365 days a year. That is the evidence I am talking about. If you have doubts, then I can give you the numbers.
Obviously we're talking about statistics here. And you think all statistics are fake or untrustworthy, except the ones you create?

Because I myself made it and I trust myself. Anyway, let me elaborate since you need the numbers.

There are 31 days in may, I have 20 florescent bulbs in the office, they run 8 hours a day at 40 watts per hour

So we have 20*40 = 800 watts an hour
800*8 = 6,400 watts a day. So 6.4 kilowatts
6.4*31 = 198.4 kilowatts in May. Rounded for simplicity, 198
198*.15 (Cost kwh) = $29.70 for that month.

Then we do the annual math. Not every month has 31 days, Februrary, April, June, September, November do not. There are 3 days missing in Feb
29.70*12 = 356.4

3+1+1+1+1=7 for days missing

7*6.4= 44.8 kwh fewer


356.4 - 44.8 = 311.6

Someone else double check my math please (because as I said, it's important for people to check each others' work), but I think you've already made a mistake here. Your 356.4 number is an amount in dollars, so it's $356.40. However, you're subtracting a number that is in kW, 44.8, so that can't accurately give you the final dollar amount for the year.

20 bulbs * 0.04 kW per bulb * 8 hours per day * 365 days per year * $0.15 per kWh = $350.40

Also, it depends on what the exact objective of your question is (which is where the logic comes in on problem solving rather than all of it being purely math). If you were calculating how much it will cost you this year, 2012, you need to take into account that it is a leap year. That means you're actually multiplying by 366 days, thus the result will be $351.36.

If you meant to calculate the average amount per year, then you need the approximate average of days per year after leap years are taken into consideration. You can calculate this by the following equation:

365 + 1/4 − 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425 (Link)

That should bring the average yearly cost to approximately $350.63 (rounded down on the last cent).

Additionally, my electricity bills include other fees and charges like transmission line usage, administration fees, etc. as well as taxes applied to the subtotal, so those would have to be accounted for if your bill includes such things as well.

I recognize that I may be overthinking your question since it's meant to be more theoretical, but I'm highlighting possible things you might forget to include in a real life example, thus you could still make a mistake even though raw math itself does "not change without reason" (yes, I know what you mean by that).
Kiumaru
The rose in spring
GuardianCentauri
The rose in spring
Statistics don't use accurate data. Also I redo the math to double check. I have 100% faith in myself. When one has trust in one self, then they cast away every insecurity.

The whole point of having multiple people go over the numbers and multiple studies is to try to reduce the number of any inaccuracies. The aim isn't absolute perfection but to bring down the margin of error to an acceptable level.

As for your own calculations, are you saying that you think you never make mistakes? You've noted how even computers can make occasional mistakes (although more often because of errors human beings made when programming them), so surely you're not suggesting that you don't.

Furthermore, how would you go about calculating something as complex as a wage gap? If you feel that you can't trust anyone else's numbers, then you'd have to start completely from scratch. Can you possibly go to a large number of companies in a wide range of occupational fields across the country and/or across the world? Could you afford it? Such impracticalities are just yet another reason that people work together to generate statistics and compare them with each other to try to root out errors and biases.

The only friend you need in life is you. The only person you can trust is you. People always lie. And warping statistics can always be done effectively, even doing so in ways that work with Benford's Law.


People can lie to themselves. Does that mean we can't even trust ourselves? Is no one trustworthy?

That is why you must always abolish doubt in yourself.
The rose in spring
GuardianCentauri
The rose in spring
Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

What if you unknowingly make a mistake with your calculations? Your numbers could be incorrect.

At least when groups of people work together, they typically double check each others' work. Hundreds of statistics do that by verifying the legitimacy of the data.

Statistics don't use accurate data. Also I redo the math to double check. I have 100% faith in myself. When one has trust in one self, then they cast away every insecurity.

um

huh?
GuardianCentauri
The rose in spring
The only friend you need in life is you. The only person you can trust is you. People always lie. And warping statistics can always be done effectively, even doing so in ways that work with Benford's Law.

I sympathize with some of the experiences and what not that you briefly described above, but can't you see how your belief that people always lie presents your perspective with a major bias in and of itself?

Also, there's a logical paradox here. If I am to take your words for granted, people always lie. That means that you are lying, which means that your statement that people always lie is... a lie.

You didn't answer my questions about whether or not you feel that you can avoid all mistakes and what solution you would come up with to calculate wage gap all by yourself.



The rose in spring
Sexual Innuendo
The rose in spring
People have bias myself included, but numbers do not. Numbers only lie when a human favricates them. Numbers are consistant. 2+2 always equals four, numbers have no emotion, they do not change without reason and they do not abandon you. Humans however are illogical and inconsistent (Not to mention backstabbers). For example, if I have 20 florescent lightbulbs in my office and they run for 8 hours for 7 days while each bulb is 40 watts, then my office will be running 198 killowatts in May. That number doesn't change. If it costs me .15 cents per killowatt an hour, then those lights will be costing me $29.70 that month. That doesn't change unless a bulb goes out or the company changes the price. Such money adds up to $311.6 per year assuming there is work 365 days a year. That is the evidence I am talking about. If you have doubts, then I can give you the numbers.
Obviously we're talking about statistics here. And you think all statistics are fake or untrustworthy, except the ones you create?

Because I myself made it and I trust myself. Anyway, let me elaborate since you need the numbers.

There are 31 days in may, I have 20 florescent bulbs in the office, they run 8 hours a day at 40 watts per hour

So we have 20*40 = 800 watts an hour
800*8 = 6,400 watts a day. So 6.4 kilowatts
6.4*31 = 198.4 kilowatts in May. Rounded for simplicity, 198
198*.15 (Cost kwh) = $29.70 for that month.

Then we do the annual math. Not every month has 31 days, Februrary, April, June, September, November do not. There are 3 days missing in Feb
29.70*12 = 356.4

3+1+1+1+1=7 for days missing

7*6.4= 44.8 kwh fewer


356.4 - 44.8 = 311.6

Someone else double check my math please (because as I said, it's important for people to check each others' work), but I think you've already made a mistake here. Your 356.4 number is an amount in dollars, so it's $356.40. However, you're subtracting a number that is in kW, 44.8, so that can't accurately give you the final dollar amount for the year.

20 bulbs * 0.04 kW per bulb * 8 hours per day * 365 days per year * $0.15 per kWh = $350.40

Also, it depends on what the exact objective of your question is (which is where the logic comes in on problem solving rather than all of it being purely math). If you were calculating how much it will cost you this year, 2012, you need to take into account that it is a leap year. That means you're actually multiplying by 366 days, thus the result will be $351.36.

If you meant to calculate the average amount per year, then you need the approximate average of days per year after leap years are taken into consideration. You can calculate this by the following equation:

365 + 1/4 − 1/100 + 1/400 = 365.2425 (Link)

That should bring the average yearly cost to approximately $350.63 (rounded down on the last cent).

Additionally, my electricity bills include other fees and charges like transmission line usage, administration fees, etc. as well as taxes applied to the subtotal, so those would have to be accounted for if your bill includes such things as well.

I recognize that I may be overthinking your question since it's meant to be more theoretical, but I'm highlighting possible things you might forget to include in a real life example, thus you could still make a mistake even though raw math itself does "not change without reason" (yes, I know what you mean by that).

The reason you got 350.63 is because the 44.8 was not calculated into money. I'm only giving a very elementary aspect of accounting. Once you get that, you also have to add the computers, the AC, the security systems, the phones and so on before you go to other expenses like wages. Accounting is a science in of itself.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games