The worst abuse of statistics by Rev Peter Jensen

Tonight on Q and A, we witnessed one of the worst abuses of statistics - and it causes real harm.

A correlation is not causation

Peter Jensen - you sinned by misusing statistics

Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen asked for a sensible debate about the health issues of being gay, on the basis that gays have shorter lifespans on average than non gay people.

This is the most heinous misuse of statistics.  A correlation (when two things coexist at the same time) does not mean that one thing causes the other.

Observe the following facts:
- People who live in Africa have a shorter lifespan than people who live in Australia
- People who are overweight have a shorter lifespan than average
- Men have a shorter lifespan than women
- People who are gay have a shorter lifespan than average
- Indigenous people have a shorter lifespan than average
- Smokers have a shorter lifespan than average

Does this mean...
- Africans are genetically weaker?
- If you are overweight, you should lose weight to live longer?
- If you are a man, you should become a woman to live longer?
- If you are gay, you should become straight to live longer?
- Indigenous Australians are at fault for their shorter life spans?
- To live longer you should stop smoking

Clearly, some of those statements are nonsensical, some are provocative, but they are all equally plausible (or implausible) from the data.  None of them should be stated without more facts.

What is really going on?

• Africans and indigenous Australians have a poorer standard of nutrition, water and healthcare among other things.  It is these things that cause shorter life spans.  The reasons that these groups and others around the world have these conditions is complex and varies from location to location.  However, this does not means that Africans or indigenous Australians are at fault for their shorter life spans.
• People who are overweight, and men have a higher risk of certain conditions which end your life.  Diabetes and heart failure are two of these.  Would losing weight reduce your risks? Yes, controlled studies have shown this.  Would becoming a woman reduce a man's risk? Who knows - there have been insufficient studies of transsexuals to evaluate?
• Gay men live on average shorter lifespans than average.  Why? There are a myriad of possible factors including higher rates of mental illness, which does shorten life spans.  Why do gays have higher rates of mental illness? There are many contributing factors, but the suggested solution that gays should try to not be gay is more likely to increase mental illness than decrease it.

• Smokers have shorter lifespans, because smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.  Lung cancer will end your life.  Therefore: smoking - causes - lung cancer - which causes death.  This is the only one of these statements that is a proven causation.

Misuse of statistics is not an accident

Peter Jensen, you are a learned man.  You studied the rigorous discipline of law, you have multiple degrees.  You know the difference between a correlation and causation.  You know that you are being deliberately mischievous when you were asked to comment on Jim Wallace's quote that included...
"The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke...But what I'm saying is we need to be aware that the homosexual lifestyle carries these problems..."

He is trying to argue that there is a causal relationship between both smoking and death and a gay lifestyle and death.  There is a relationship for smoking.  There is no relationship for a gay lifestyle.

You know the difference Peter Jensen.  You know.
 

Peter Jensen, your knew your comments would get traction. You misused statistics deliberately.  That is sinful. Christ would not have done that.

The Peter Roebuck story: we must be careful of the dots we connect

Front page of today's Fairfax Sunday papers is the exclusive "The Roebuck tragedy: a tale of love, beatings and blackmail".  This is a remarkable piece of investigative journalism, reporting on the enigma who was Peter Roebuck, both respected cricket commentator, and now also known as alleged child sexual offender and benefactor.  A paradox indeed.

Yet, within what appears to be a factually diligent reportage, there is a disturbing connection.  The connection is not made deliberately, and in this particular case, the connection is fair.  Unfortunately, it also enables those who are not so fair-minded to extend the connection in directions where it has no right to go.  This connection is that as Peter Roebuck was a homosexual, that homosexuals are likely to sexually assault young boys.

Some people commit sexual assaults - race, class, sexuality, religion or any other characteristics has no relevance

Whenever sexual assaults are reported, there is understandable community concern, even outrage.  This heady emotion can often combine with prejudices against various groups in society, so that an offender who is of a particular race, class, sexual orientation, even religion is seen as representative of all of their kind, rather than representative of sex offenders.

Within the article, cricket commentator Jim Maxwell explained that:
"he was "taken aback" when he gave his statement to police shortly after his friend's suicide, and the second question they asked was "Did you know he was a homosexual?"

For those who have a predilection towards criticism of gays, this offers them the opportunity to say "see, he was gay, no wonder he did it to those boys".

All of the evidence is to the contrary.  Pedophiles are pedophiles, not because they are black men raping white women, Catholic priests interfering with altar boys, or gays assaulting young men. These three cohorts have had the misfortune of attracting widespread media attention, as a result of certain cases that have enabled myths to be perpetuated.  None of these groups deserved those connections.

Myths related to sexual assault are damaging myths

There are so many myths relating to sexual assault, which have been disproved by many studies (see a list of reliable references below).  These include the myth that sexually provocative dress means that women are "asking for it", the myth that most assaults are by strangers, that most assailants are old men, and so forth.

When these myths are allowed to perpetuate, our society suffers.  We distrust priests (most of whom are well meaning people).  We discriminate against women for the way they dress.  The US criminal justice system has been shown to discriminate against black men. And there are many more impacts on our society.

The Roebuck legacy must not be about gays and boys

The Peter Roebuck legacy will be many things.  It may be about the need to support youths reach their potential in Africa.  It may be about the need to be more aware of abuses against vulnerable children.  It may be related to cricket. It may be other things entirely.

What the legacy must not be is an excuse for bigots to accuse all gays of being pedophiles, nor an excuse to be suspicious of all white men in Africa.


For when we engage in unfounded bigotry, it hurts us all.


Let me know what you think.

Mark S

References on sexual assault myths:
http://www.thewomens.org.au/SexualAssaultsMyths
http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/csa_myths.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml
http://www.malesurvivor.org/myths.html
http://www.mnsu.edu/here4you/assault/myths.html

From bikinis to gay rights, there are real costs of not supporting civil liberties

When it comes to economic matters, data and logic really are king.  But social attitudes are not so cut and dry.  I've spent the last few days researching data to support some thoughts on social liberalism, and then had an epiphany - not every comment needs to be supported by statistics!  Instead, the issue of social liberties comes down to a philosophical debate between two sides.

In the red corner - those of us who believe that adults should be permitted to act in whatever way they want, providing it doesn't cause any harm to person or property.
In the blue corner - those who believe that adults cannot be trusted to make good (or moral?) decisions, and need to be "protected" by the imposition of a set of rules by "society".

Of course there are an unlimited supply of examples that bring this debate to a head, so let's look at a couple of them, from the sublime to the ridiculous:

Wearing bikinis:
In the red corner, we say, if you want to wear a bikini, wear a bikini.
In the blue corner - well, it depends on what year it is, and where you are. Throughout history, the bikini has been acceptable, then unacceptable, then acceptable again.

Villa Romana del Casale, Sicily.
Source: Wikipedia

In 2006, in Kanab, in the US state of Utah, Council passed a ban on bikinis at the city pool, which was overturned in 2008.  The Kuwaitis rejected a motion to ban the bikini just this year, but in the neighbouring Saudi Arabia, no way.

Kuwaiti parliament rejects ban on bikinis

So, just for the moment, let's consider the blue corner has a point (which I don't accept of course), and this bikini ban is in some way a good decision for women.  Why should that decision vary from year to year, and even from State to State and country to country?  It's surely nonsensical.



Sex between consenting adults of the same sex:
In the red corner, we say, if you want to have sex, enjoy yourself.
In the blue corner - this is one of those issues where the wrath of God has been invoked against sin.  But of course, society's attitudes have differed over the centuries.  To the ancient Greeks, no problem.  To the Abrahamic religions, it is a sin.  For the Chinese, over most of its history, homosexuality has been OK.

When it comes to homosexuality, the battle isn't just theoretical.  Societies over the years have demonised and proscribed homosexuality, with 76 countries still criminalizing consenting sexual acts between people of the same sex.  4,000 people have been executed in Iran since 1979 for homosexual acts.

You see, when it comes to being socially liberal, there are real consequences. The costs of imposing rules on people, where no person is being harmed are very, very high.


Let me know what you think

Mark S