How are people stating they believe in science, yet be so far from scientific methods when it comes to commonly accepted thoughts and media?
Explaining statistics, before presenting an example of the problem, statistics are based on a z score. A sample population greater than 30 is sampled in order to gain a better picture of the entire population. Instead of measuring a piece of lawn; counting every leaf of grass and then multiplying the number according the area of the lawn, as they would in algebra, statisticians run around the lawn evaluating the growth or lack of growth in an area to create a graph. Average growth is normal. Tufts of long, lush grass along the corners with dry spots scattered here and there are abnormal.
Z scores are also called normal distribution. Sometimes the results are skewed, yet most of the time; samples of a population produce similar results, by design. Most of the population is in-between, while some are above average and some are below average. This mathematical system is based on compiling relevant numbers from the tested population to find averages, medians and modes. The data is compared in a hypothesis to determine relevancy of a theory.
In a small population of less than thirty, caught and questioned serial killers, the necessary population to gain insight is lower than what is required for accurate hypothesis testing. It was observed several of them grew up with religion in their home, along with over eighty percent of the entire United States. Yet, people made a connection between religion (magical thinking) and criminals. However, millions of religious people are not even criminals.
The average religious person might have committed a minor crime, whether petty theft, forgetting to pay parking tickets or speeding. Therefore, the data is skewed in favor of the religious not being criminals. How do one or two people alter the perception of an entire group? Yet, people are suspicious of anyone with similarities to an extremely unusual person.
This phenomenon occurs in several groups. One bank places higher restrictions on service, almost saying, "If you don't have a lot of money, go somewhere else." People comment on this one bank saying, "Banks pick on people who are already poor by charging absurd nonsufficient funds fees." This becomes the entire image of banking, even though everyone has a bank account; therefore, daily life disproves the statement.
At first, I thought people were interested in hearing negative gossip over taking the time to correctly evaluate their environment. After thinking about it for a long time, if that was all it is everyone would be selfish criminals ruining everyone's daily life. Since most people are able to live entire lifetimes with hardly any issue, it is something else.
Walking around I've encountered many regular people (normal people are frequently the larger representation of a population) and they appear to be indignant about awful behavior perpetrated by "other" people. In away, getting through the day without being an inhuman demon makes them a wonderful individual, not tempted into harming others, though the temptation is rarely offered.
What exactly does this means? Is it a form of control, boosting self-esteem or a habitual tradition passed down through the generations? The answer is unknown. Few accept the villain role, so discussing awful behavior inspires constructive behavior? While this is an acceptable method of promoting morals, I worry about people who confuse the roles of hero and villain.
Related Article
Average Equals Belonging
Diffusing Violent Behavior
The Fit in Society
Original Life Force
Plethora of Criminology Shows
Quirky Books
The Ego and the Id by Sigmund Freud
McCarthy by Roy Cohn
