Statistics? | Articles | the bombsite

. . . . . . . . . . .

About the Post

Author Information

Posted by: Stuart

I enjoy working with HTML, XHTML, CSS and designers as a web developer. At home I enjoy listening to music, playing music, reading and food.

Post Information

Posted on: 13 January 2005

Posted in:

Comments: 10

Statistics?

So what did you think of my last post? It’s totally true and, if you’ve thought about it for a while, you will have realised that. It does sound weird though doesn’t it? I have something else for you to think about here and yes, I am leading you along a path but I want you to think about some things before I get to the point.

A study has shown that 1 in 5 men are not the biological father of their child. This information was front-page news at the time the study was published. The figure quoted is perfectly true but the wise, old newspaper hack that wrote the article forgot to mention a couple of things. This was undoubtedly done deliberately for shock value.

The study was based on collating figures gathered from DNA test labs nationwide. It was a very large study so the figures are significant.

Now here’s what wasn’t said in the newspapers. It was not pointed out that the study was based on DNA results. Now think about that! Why would any man want to have a DNA test done? Well there are 2 main reasons. The first is to prove that he is not the father, the second is to prove that he is. I hope you understand the difference but the second reason is rare compared to the first so it has no significant effect on the quoted figure. Now if all these men already have suspicions that lead them to having a DNA test done it is no surprise that 20% of them are proved correct in their assumptions. But you should be able to see that the men having suspicions to start with is going to skew the results somewhat. The point is that you cannot apply the 1 in 5 figure to the population in general, only to those who have requested a DNA test, and the study said this. The wise, old newspaper hack just happened not to mention it though.

Comments ( 10 )

Lizz
Far more shocking, I think, would be “4 in 5 women are not the biological mothers of their children”

What study could prove this (or something like this)?
13 January 2005, 20:24
Stuart
That would be novel.
13 January 2005, 20:31
Lizz
... Yes, it would be novel, but it’s also possible…

“4 out of 5 mothers who use donated eggs are not the biological mothers of their children”
14 January 2005, 02:58
Thomasso
Adoption?
14 January 2005, 04:50
Lizz
No; the premise is that if a woman has to use a donated egg, which is then fertilized in vitro and implanted, there is still a slight chance that she will already be pregnant herself. So although she doesn’t EXPECT to be the genetic mother, there is a (very very slight) chance that she would be.

Hey Stu, what happened to our pretty gravatars??
14 January 2005, 19:54
Stuart
I’m afraid that the gravatar site has a habit of being off-line which can cause long delays when trying to view or post a new comment. I got fed-up.
14 January 2005, 20:05
Lizz
sigh and I so liked my turtle… Oh well, at least I have it as my online icon now.
15 January 2005, 15:59
Stuart
Ahh! Never mind, and I might change my mind again, I often do, but in the mean while you can still use it in my beautifully updated Forum though you might want to read my earlier post about it first. If you stick with your “gravatar” email address then if I do bring them back it works retrospectively. Ooooo big word.
15 January 2005, 16:18
Lizz
you mean retroactively?
15 January 2005, 23:42
Stuart
It depends how you look at it.
16 January 2005, 00:23

Commenting is closed for this article.