Statistics are bullshit

[cstaylor]

Percentages are especially suspect. What was the size of the 1971 group? Ethnic and socioeconomic makeup?

Are these students on the Japanese version of the American H1B program, where they're supposed to learn a trade but are really underpaid sweatshop workers?

[Crispy]

I know that some previous participants in our exchange program managed to waste their entire time in Japan by hanging out only with their American friends. Likewise, lots of Japanese exchange students at our school fail to connect with any Americans. Anyway, I'm not gonna let it happen to me. Oh, and those stats stink of having just been pulled out of an ass.

[cstaylor]

I mean, how could you possibly make these numbers sound better? Because in 1991 they interviewed nice spoiled hakujin exchange students, and now they're interviewing poor brown or Asian exchange students? Most sweatshop workers probably work harder than most gaijin doing "high-finance" jobs in Tokyo, and they're supporting the Japanese economy by doing the shitty three-K jobs that young Japanese refuse to do anymore.

You just answered your own question: if I was a sweatshop worker spending all of my "free time" busting my ass for some ungrateful Japanese sweatshop owner, of course I'd say: "hell, I don't have any Japanese friends, just taskmasters". But if I was a spoiled Hakujin YD on the prowl every weekend, of course I'd have far more Japanese friends.

My point was that statistics are complete bullshit when they don't give you all of the samping information:

- What is the socioeconomic background of the students in Japan
- How many are on the Japanese equivalent of the H-1B
- How many hours do they work every week
- Where do they go to school. Are the numbers broken down by "trade school" and "four-year education"?
- Where do they spend their "free-time"? Work?

[cstaylor]

So you're saying, according to your own ass-pulling, you think today's foreign exchange students have the same number of Japanese friends? Or are you just ignoring the main question and only commenting on suspect statistical techniques?

I'm just critically reviewing an article that appeared as fact in a newspaper, when the "facts" are easily misread without the proper background information about how the survey was conducted. Since I didn't conduct this survey, I can only guess about results. The people who conducted the survey and have not printed the entire story are the ass-pulling wankers.

[cstaylor]

[cstaylor]

Can I answer that with another quote?

I know that some previous participants in our exchange program managed to waste their entire time in Japan by hanging out only with their American friends.

Yeah, except "some" is anecdotal, and that there's no correlation between "hanging with American friends" and the group that wants to continue studying in Japan.

This is all conjecture anyways... I'd actually buy a newspaper (or pay for the service online) that would link to the full survey information for every so-called "statistical fact" they publish.

[cstaylor]

You said it. But maybe you'd like to volunteer for Czar of Statistically Sound Fucked Links.

No one likes an empty web page... but just the same I updated my Avatar in case I change my mind about the promotion you've offered.

[Crispy]

Yeah, except "some" is anecdotal, and that there's no correlation between "hanging with American friends" and the group that wants to continue studying in Japan.

They were the same bunch that came basically as tourists (this program does not actually require any previous Japanese experience for some reason) and ended up drinking away all their time and money in expernsive touristy bars. One even convinced the head of the program to give him all his stipend money all at once, and he proceeded to spend it all in the first month of a four month program on booze. Fucktard.

Japanese is my major, translation is my passion, I'm not going to fuck this up.