A plea to the left

So I was driving home today at around 5PM in Atlanta and, those of you who have been to Atlanta will know, I was gridlocked in traffic for a good 30 minutes. As I was stuck in traffic, I decided to browse a little reddit and read up on some happenings of the day (bad habit, I know). I then came across this gem:

I was raped. Thanks to Republicans, I could be denied insurance for surviving.

Please read it.

Go. I’ll wait.


What the actual fuck?

If this isn’t left wing sensationalist news, I do not know what is (I get that this was an “opinion” piece, but it still riles me up as this is the “leading” perspective on what the new Trumpcare bill is about). If you feel like I have already offended your sensibilities at this point, please feel free to stop, but I will implore you to continue and have a discussion with me.

First, having worked in the insurance industry for so long, let me explain to you what insurance is about. Insurance is basically the pooling of money so that if any person in that pool were to experience a significant life event, they would be able to tap into that pool and help themselves get through it. A big piece of that is that the pool needs to have enough money so that after enough events, the pool can still survive and provide for the participants of the pool. As such, there a huge emphasis on the government to protect the solvency of that pool (the insurance companies). Now, here is where the balancing act happens (and why I think actuaries are one of the greatest professions). If you price too cheaply, you will not collect enough money for the pool and run the risk of exhausting the pool from these significant life events. If you price too high, no one will contribute to the pool except the most risky (since they know their contributions will be less than what they take out of the pool) and again, your pool will not be big enough to cover those life events. If you charge everyone an equal price but another pool doesn’t, you run the risk that you soak up all the bad risks because the other pool figured out who is good and bad and gave discounts to the good. All in all, its a fine art to balance prices so that you can persist on providing that pool and providing the financial safeguard to the participants in that pool.

Inherently, as individuals, we have “good” risks and “bad” risks – namely, people who tend to take more out of the pool than put in (“bad”) and people who tend to provide more for the pool than take out (“good”). Uncertainty (thank god for statistics, plug #2) is what binds us together. Now remember, we built this pool so that we can protect people when bad things happen in their lives, so naturally, we would like the pool to be as big as possible – attempt to provide financial safeguard to the most people we can. However, the “bad” risks tend to jeopardize that goal. They tend to use up more of the pool than they put in, so, in many ways, they limit the number of people we can attract to join our pool. So now, I think the next natural step is to ask ourselves – why don’t we limit entry of these “bad” risks in (if we can somehow identify them) or perhaps charge them a much higher rate so that they carry more of their own individual burdens? That way, we can get more “good” and “slightly bad” risks in and overall protect more people.

And now, we are back at the article. Prior to Obamacare, rape and domestic violence were, in many cases, considered pre-existing conditions. Obamacare prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and thus widened the coverage net to more people. However, all of this does not come without a cost. In the pool example above, this means that now all the “bad” risks (perhaps “bad” is too stigmatizing, what I just mean is that the people who tend to use the pool more than they contribute) are allowed to enter the pool and utilize the pool. What does that mean? Well, the good risks were already all in there (mostly) because they were not banned from the pool in the first place, so now, the pool is upside down since we just allowed an influx of  habitual drawers of the pool in to draw from the pool. So I guess, that means we all gotta contribute more to the pool. I think this is all fine, as I believe there is a social benefit to having more healthy people (just as there is a social benefit to everyone having auto insurance – so that you don’t get as many hit and run situations), just hard to quantify. However, I do think that there are probably some conditions that are prohibitively expensive to cover in the pool and that we need to tread lightly and think hard about whether or not that is something the pool will cover. And this, is why I think this article is of the utmost stupidity.

In an effort to get people to sympathize, she basically proves that rape is prohibitively expensive and taxes the other participants greatly. To me, when reading this article, she is basically saying “rape is expensive, i was a victim, it was not my fault, and therefore you all should pay to cover me for any medical expenses, please don’t take that away from me.” Rape is horrendous, no doubt, but this is an asinine argument to shift blame from a failing judicial system onto the financials of a healthcare system. While I agree that she is the victim of a horrible deed and should not bear the brunt of that event, I also believe that the people who are putting money in to cover medical expenses due to disease and other mishaps (perhaps less egregious) should not either! In fact – the fight is with the judicial system in punishing the rapists much more heavily into payments that cover these expenses! Rape is one of those things in which you tend to actually have a responsible party (e.g. cancer is not) – why the hell are you promoting an American institution to lighten the load of that responsible party to spread that out to people seeking healthcare due to fortuitous events?! In fact, wouldn’t this alleviate the pressure in forcing the judicial system into taking just action when it comes to rape? You’re basically creating an excuse to potentially have the rapist pay less for their crimes!

And herein lies the issues I have with the left-wing media. From the way this article was written and from all the news that came out regarding Trumpcare and rape, the left-wing media is trying to sensationalize the public in getting Trumpcare reversed. For all of the people who got angry at the passing of Trumpcare – how many of them ACTUALLY know the tenets of the bill? How many actually care? Are we all going to just stick by partisan lines and vote against Republican laws? Isn’t that what the Republicans did during the Obama administration?

I know we constantly complain about the “bible belt” and the religious silo driving a big portion of the Republican votes. However, it is evident from this election, we suffer from the religious silo of “bleeding heart” liberalism and sympathy socialism. We tend to make quick snap judgments when we hear the things like “rape” or “abortion” or “tax cuts for the rich” or “the aclu hates this.” We don’t actually research deep enough to figure out if the policy actually makes sense. Why should the rich carry a much heavier burden on healthcare when they tend to be more healthy? The decrease in the corporate tax could help small companies avoid the heavy double taxation (35% on the company side and then ANOTHER 35% on the personal side once they take it out as salary) as well as the large corporations – are we sure that will not spur growth of the smaller corporations? Why shouldn’t we be more careful with our country’s money and service funding by cutting funding or altering coverage to certain social services with a lot of fat? Have we not learned from government plans like Social Security and NFIP in terms of how inadequately that was funded and how much that is costing our nation? I get it, we all want to be good people, but socialism IS NOT THE ANSWER (I’m looking at you, Bernie). Perhaps if we actually take the time to think and analyze when presented an issue (instead of just sticking to our partisan guns), we can come together and find the answer. Until then, all we have to go on to heal this nation is exactly what we had a year ago:

Crooked Hillary vs Racist Trump.

Taking a Step Back from UA 3411

With the recent social media outrage at United’s scandal on board UA 3411, I must admit that my initial reaction was complete disbelief that such an abhorrent thing could occur on a US domestic flight. While I do not mean that as any sort of credence that US flight carriers have amazing customer service, I mean that more as “how could they not have considered the media ramifications of such a move?!” Now, having thought about it on-and-off for about a day, I actually feel like that’s really the only thing that they messed up there. I recognize that this point of view may be considered callous and certainly unpopular, but hear me out.

To start off, let’s talk about what factually happened.

  1. UA 3411 flight was overbooked.
  2. United asked for volunteers to board next flight at compensation of upwards of $800 + hotel stay.
  3. No one volunteered, so United decided to randomize the selection of individuals to be “volun-forced” to board next flight.
  4. Couple was picked, they left. A doctor was selected to leave, he refused.
  5. Doctor was dragged out by Chicago Aviation Police forcibly. Injuries incurred.

Now, let’s talk about what’s “wrong”:

  1. Overbooking. As a lot of people outraged about airlines overbooking their flights, I actually feel this is not as evil as people think, and definitely not a problem specific to United Airlines. Overbooking is something like rating by credit score in the insurance industry (sorry, gotta stick to what I know). Your initial reaction is always going to be – “that’s not fair!”, but the truth of it is that it probably leads to lower flight prices for everybody. Without any sort of regulation stating that airlines cannot overbook a flight, the airline that employs overbooking (even with the gaudy compensations should the flight truly become over-filled) will out-compete all other airlines. By ensuring near maximal capacity on your flights, you definitely can spread out the per unit cost better than if you can only guarantee 80% capacity on your flights, which leads to lower prices. Unless we as a market can suggest that we value getting on our flight 100% of the time (over, say, 99% of time) is more important than cheaper fares, we have forced the airlines’ hands. They (and indirectly, we) have made the clear tradeoff that cheaper airfares greatly outweigh the inconvenience. In fact, I would almost argue that the fact that airlines hire mathematicians and statisticians to create models to forecast the probabilities of overbooking to minimize the negative PR has shown to me that they have been more than sufficiently responsible in utilizing this profit maximizing tool. Now whether or not you believe on principle this should be allowed, that’s a discussion for another day. But in an unregulated environment, I find no fault in airlines that do this and certainly not United Airlines.
  2. The $800 + hotel compensation. To be honest, this is probably the primary thing that I think United Airlines played incorrectly. Even then, its a bit grey. I do think that they should’ve increased the compensation until someone agrees to it. I believe that the overbooking was a fault of United Airlines (though perfectly legal), and a good way to avoid negative PR would be to hit a point in which you get the necessary volunteers to take another flight. Now, whether or not there would be any takers with the maximal benefit of $1350 (I think we should be asking why is there even a cap on the maximal benefit here) can only be left to speculation (in fact, it may be the case that the hotel + $800 hits the maximal benefit of $1350 and that United’s hands were tied).
  3. Randomizing “volunteers” to leave the plane. Okay, first, let’s get over this whole “volunteer” vs “non-volunteer” business. Yes, they were forced off the planes. No they did not volunteer. At the point in which the randomization occurred, I do not believe anyone believed they would be “volunteering” when chosen. It was clear they would be asked to leave the plane, which, by the way, is perfectly legal and at the discretion of United. Let’s not skew the discussion with mockery of United’s definition of “volunteering” – at that point, it was way beyond that. Now, given that you absolutely HAD to remove people on the plane to make room for United employees, randomizing is probably the fairest approach (pun intended). So really, the only qualm that you could possibly pick here is whether or not it was an “absolute must” to remove people on the plane to make room for United employees. Unfortunately, I do not know enough of the logistics here to say that there wouldn’t be a better approach, but I am also sure that neither do any of the other people that responded so vehemently on social media. Should United have considered another approach? Probably. Did they consider other approaches? Most likely. Would this be horrible PR? Definitely. Is this illegal? Definitely not.
  4. Doctor refusing to leave. This. This is the fact that everyone glossed over. From all the hurricane of responses on the internet, the hidden implication is that the doctor, without a doubt, was entitled to be there. I agree that he paid for the ticket, but if we were to believe that in #3 above that United HAD the right to remove people from the plane in a case of an overbooking (which a simple google search could verify), the doctor was refusing to abide by the rules! I truly believe that the doctor himself did not know he was refusing to abide by United’s rules (as I’m not sure if the overbooking clause is published in any fine print, and even if it is, I highly doubt anyone read it), but nonetheless, the doctor himself refused to abide by the “law” of the airline. He was no more entitled to his seat than anyone else on that plane and, in this situation, no one was entitled to their seat in an overbooked situation.
  5. Doctor being forcibly dragged out of the flight. First, I do want to point out that the security guard that dragged the doctor out is part of the Chicago Aviation Police acting under the orders of United Airlines. Whether or not that matters, thats up to you. But now, if we have established in #3 that United was within their legal bounds and that #4 the doctor was the one not abiding by the rules, then its fairly clear to see that the doctor was, for a lack of better phrase, “resisting arrest.” The doctor had to be removed from the plane (to guarantee the integrity of the “randomization” in #3) yet he was refusing to do so. Now, I can’t speak to what happened that caused the injuries, but I am going assume that the doctor struggled against the “arrest,” and in the chaos, he had to be subdued. I’m sure all of you are aware of how small those airplane seats are and thus, how difficult it would be to remove a struggling individual from that seat. Note that I am not condoning what was done, but I do believe that it was not done out of malice and certainly not intentional. It is certainly tragic that the doctor was injured in this exchange, but if you look at police videos of arrests (and I do recognize that upholding airline laws and criminal laws do have key differences, but the nature of the actions and consequences are undeniably similar), I’m not sure you can really find malicious intent in this exchange. Now, I do feel like the doctor getting dragged out is a bit excessive (I felt they could’ve helped him up and walked him out), but I feel like thats beyond the principle that everyone is discussing.

Some additional notes:

  1. There has been some discussion regarding the profession of the doctor (verified?) and the fact that he needs to see patients the next day. Unless you agree that certain professions should get better treatment on flights due to the nature of their job, I think we can agree that his “doctorship” matters very little. The focus on his profession just seeks to over-sensationalize the situation. Randomization chose him and that is fair enough to me (unless he provides proof of more than compelling evidence why he HAS to make that flight).
  2. A lot of people seem to citing that the police is here to protect the people not to intimidate the people. Uh, no. The police is here to enforce the laws. The lawmakers are here to ensure that, by enforcing the laws, the police are protecting the people. As a social construct, I believe that it is in our best interest to protect each other, but thats NOT the role of the police. The police is here to enforce the laws – we can only hope (well, we can do better by electing the law makers) that by doing so, they are protecting our best interests.
  3. Some people have argued that the United employees on that plane should have spoken out/taken action to stop the Aviation Police from forcibly removing the doctor from the plane. But let me ask you, how many people have you seen “fighting” the police to stop an arrest?

All in all, I think this goes back to my qualm about social media. In this day and age, we have access to so much information at such a rapid pace, all of which is goading us into making snap judgments. Even in this case, in which we are exposed to a video which almost seems “impossible” to take out of context, we jumped to a conclusion and picked up our pitchforks way too soon. I think we should demand an investigation, demand a response from United – that I have no question. But instead of leaping out and condemning what we do not understand, we should all take a step back and remove our emotions from the facts.

Perhaps you agree with me, perhaps you do not. I do not seek to convince you, I just seek to provide another point of view for your consideration.

Post Election Thoughts

So I have stayed relatively silent about the election, and in a large part, I do believe that the liberal side of the US vastly overreacted to the results of the election on a POLITICAL level. There were a lot of rhetoric about the world being over and secession and not accepting the results of the election, which, to me, is INSANE. I do believe this is exactly how the right side of the spectrum felt when Obama was elected (for good reason or not), and we chastised them for being extremists – our reaction to this election honestly have been no different.

That aside, my main reservation with Donald Trump is not with his politics. I think with media/social media (and I think most of you guys know my view towards this) being a massive echo chamber, I do welcome the insight of the right to take precedent in the next 4 years so that we can at least understand what their views are. We may all come to the conclusion that it is bat-shit crazy, but lets at least start with an open mind. I welcome the chance to compromise, debate, and learn, whether it is for myself or for my “opponent.”

However, what I DO worry about – is the racist/sexist/overall intolerant rhetoric that Trump used to get here. Whether or not you consider an argument tactic (which is actually a VERY interesting theory), the fact that he used that rhetoric and ended up getting elected EMPOWERS people with similar mindsets. This is clearly unacceptable. I want to distinguish this with a difference in ideals. I know a lot of people have considered Bernie’s policies to be crazy and unfeasible; I think thats okay. He was definitely socialist leaning and whether or not you agreed with his principals, at the end of the day, does not challenge our integrity as human beings. It merely acts as an information exchange in which extreme views are met with practical limitations and then formed into viable policy. However, the danger with Trump is that his (spoken) ideals challenges our fundamental principals as human beings. Regardless of how effective his domestic/financial policy will be, I cannot accept that trade if its for minority rights, minority well-being, and the general freedom of mankind and womankind. This was my main disconnect in this election.

In any case, this election has signaled to me that we have our work cut out for us. And by work, I don’t mean the impeachment of Trump, I don’t mean the secession of California, I don’t even mean the race to the midterms to elect a liberal congress. This election has shown me how big of an effect social media has on our lives – how much of an echo chamber is has left us in and how much more is out there. As educated people in an information rich generation, we need to be proactive in seeking news sources, contemplating ramifications, and approaching things with an open mind. I don’t want to be part of the righteous generation that condemns people with different beliefs and seeks to take away their rights to satisfy what we believe is right. I saw too much of that in this election (on both sides), and I will say that I’m utterly disgusted. Let’s not forget our integrity of human beings, what it truly means to live in free country, and our real civic duty – which is not just to vote, but to stay completely and earnestly informed of the things that not only affect us, but also those that disagree with us.

I know I have not done well in that regards, have you?

With that in mind, I will leave some articles that I have found interesting recently. Read them at your own leisure, but I think I got a lot of good insights from them in contemplating on the future:

Day 1 Trump’s America

Democrats and the Working Class

Her Loss

Donald Trump and the Lessons of Brexit

Why Twitter Must Be Saved

In all, I welcome Donald to the white house. While I look forward to working with you in making America great again (even if that means voting for/against your policies), know that I will not waver when your policies question our integrity as a human being.

Thanks for hearing me out,


First Officiating Experience

As some of you may be aware, recently I had the distinct pleasure of “officiating” (read: asian officiating, as in the bride and groom already signed papers, I’m not religious, and basically I got asked to go up and tell jokes about love) the wedding of a good friend and co-worker. I was extremely honored with the opportunity to be such an integral part of such a beautiful day and, in some regards, want to share some of that moment with you here.

Now, overall this is going to read a lot better than it sounded, since you don’t have me getting all nervous (yes, I still get nervous in public occasions – I probably shouldn’t have been so polite with the champagne) and rapping through the speech like a madman. In any case, prepare yourself for some bad math jokes (in two languages!):

Ladies and gentleman, please get seated. The captain has turned on the fasten the seat belt sign. At this time, we request that all mobile phones and pagers be put on silent for the remainder of the ceremony. Should you need assistance, if you have a mobile phone, your neighbor should be able to aid you. If you have a pager, please come see us and we will find you the nearest time machine to the 1980s. Thank you.

We are gathered here today celebrate the marriage of Prizilla and Neville. If you are not here for that reason, you probably missed the first turn to the golf course down the road. In any case, for all of those who have come to witness (and for all those who don’t want to admit they are lost), on behalf of the bride and the groom, I would like to thank you for joining us at such a momentous day. As French author Marcel Proust once said, “Let us be grateful to the people who make us happy, for they are the charming gardeners who make our souls blossom.” You are the people who make Prizilla and Neville’s souls blossom. They are extremely happy to have you here to be a part of this enchanted evening.

As many of you may be aware, the Supreme Court recently has helped us further define the concept of marriage. However, regardless of our opinions on that, I think we can all agree that the concept of love is not ambiguous. Take a look at the person you came with, take a look at your kids (and if you don’t have kids or came alone, take a good look at all the money in your wallet). Love is the mutual understanding, just from that short glimpse, that the best thing to hold onto in life is each other. That’s why you both are standing here. That’s why you all are here to watch them stand up here. It is precisely moments like this that we are reminded that our love is the very best part of our humanity.

And marriage, well, marriage it the sum of that love. That love which one plus one is everything and two minus one is nothing. That love in which you cherish each other today more than yesterday and less than, well, less than or equal to, tomorrow. And that love in which you realize that what lies behind you and what lies before you is significantly smaller than what lies within you. Marriage is not a noun, it’s a verb; it’s not just this moment, it’s every moment; and it’s not simply falling in love, it’s as the limit of falling in love approaches infinity, all with the same person. 

今天我们来到此地,参加 Prizilla 和 Neville 的婚礼,是为了见证他们温馨奇妙的爱情,终于修成正果。 假如这不是你来的目的,那你有可能错过了去高尔夫球场的第一个转弯。 无论如何,我要代表新郎和新娘谢谢所有的嘉宾(包括哪些不想承认自己走错路的)能跟他们一起,度过他们一生中最具特别意义的美好时刻。 正如法国作家普鲁斯特说过的那样:“我们要感谢那些让我们快乐的人。 他们是培育我们心灵花朵的园丁。” 你们就是新郎、新娘的心目中的那个园丁和花匠。 很高兴有你们与我们共同度过如此美妙的夜晚。谢谢大家。

众所周知,最近联邦法院帮我们重新定义了婚姻这个概念。但是,不管你对此有何看法,我觉得我们都可以确定,爱情这个东西在我们心中不是模糊的。 看看跟你来的那个人,看看你的孩子(假如你没孩子或者是自己来的,好好看看你的钱包), 爱情就是在那一瞬间让我们决定相拥彼此一生的感觉。这就是他们俩今天站在这儿的理由,也是大家这么关注他们俩站在这儿的原因。 也正是因为这些时刻,我们反复的被提醒 : 爱情是我们一生中最美丽的信仰。

那婚姻呢,婚姻是爱情的美好归宿。那个爱情是一加一等于一切,而二减一意味着什么都没有。那个爱情也是那个让我们今天的互相珍惜大于以往而也小于(呃,小于等于)将来。那个爱情让我们明白昨天的毅力跟面对明天的勇气,永远会远远小于我们自己心中的华丽。 婚姻其实不是一个名词,而是一个动词; 它不是这一刻,而是每一刻; 它不是简简单单的爱上某个人,而是时时刻刻跟那个人坠入情网。

Neville and Prizilla, you fell in love by chance but you are here today by choice. You are about to make promises to each other to sanctify that choice. Neville, please repeat after me.

“I choose you, Prizilla, to be my wife, as my friend and love. On this day I affirm the relationship we have enjoyed, looking to the future and to keep and strengthen it. I will be yours in plenty and in want, in sickness and in health, in failure and in triumph. Together, we will dream, and live as one while respecting one another, we will stumble but restore each other, we will share all things. I will cherish, comfort, and encourage you, be open with you, and stay with you as long as I shall live.”

 “I choose you, Neville, to be my husband, as my friend and love. On this day I affirm the relationship we have enjoyed, looking to the future and to keep and strengthen it. I will be yours in plenty and in want, in sickness and in health, in failure and in triumph. Together, we will dream, and live as one while respecting one another, we will stumble but restore each other, we will share all things. I will cherish, comfort, and encourage you, be open with you, and stay with you as long as I shall live.”

Neville, as you place the ring on Prizilla’s finger, please repeat after me:

Prizilla, I give you this ring as a symbol of my love. As it encircles your finger, may it remind you always that you are surrounded by my enduring love.

Prizilla, as you place the ring on Neville’s finger, please repeat after me:

Neville, I give you this ring as a symbol of my love. As it encircles your finger, may it remind you always that you are surrounded by my enduring love.

And now by the power vested in me by the laws of California and the greater laws of mathematics, I pronounce you husband and wife! You may now kiss the bride!

Also, bonus picture of the bride and groom + me + obligatory double chin that comes out with all suits I wear.

Prizilla & Neville's Wedding

A Treatise in Intern Development

























From the floor to the hammock. You show ’em Senior Intern!


“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine as children do. It’s not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own lights shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

So enough of this, I am going to shine through this suffocating darkness.

The Race Card

So randomly browsing through my facebook this morning, i found something interesting through the facebook grapevine:

UCLA Race Card

Granted that I am not that familiar with any racial situations in UCLA, but this guy seems to be desperately playing the race card. People need to understand that one-sided statistics, coupled with fancy rhetoric does not incite change among your educated masses. You might be able to incite a reaction from your typical college student, but this video leaves a lot of question to be answered. To me, this is the spin doctor.

Until people learn to drop the fancy, biased rhetoric (the analogy to the palette of colors is interesting, but almost COMPLETELY irrelevant) and start learning how to compare statistics, think critically, and dig deep for the root of questions (is it really true that African American students are not graduating due to lack of financial aid? California does not have affirmative action – does that mean its not a level playing field?), videos like these just serve to undermine your credibility on these issues.

I am disgusted by this video – the ineptitude to provide relevant information only seeks to mar the purity of your cause. 

Dear Modern Day Statistics Student

I’m sure most of you guys have heard of the whole BART strike fiasco up in the Bay Area for the last couple of months. While the issue itself is immensely interesting, it also led me to things like this:


Now, on initial glance, the hidden statistician and truth seeker in all of us will rejoice at the data and information at our hands. We will play around and hover over each bubble trying to figure out what story each visualization has to share.

And herein lies the problem.

These visualizations tell us no stories. Well, maybe thats not fair. These visualizations have stories to tell us – its just that the authors and creators have made them mute. I get it. These visualizations look nice. These visualizations are not made from simple excel bar charts and pie graphs but are rather made from fancy javascript where bubbles get bigger when you hover over them. These visualizations are what I would have put in a 5th grade science fair project to wow all the asian parents into comparing their sons and daughters to me. But honestly, that is exactly what I think it is – shiny, 5th grade art.

Now, to clarify, I am not against creative data visualization. I think the very act of visualizing data not only helps emphasize our insights into the data, but can also instill those very insights into our minds. To be able to creatively illustrate a point is like the milk to your statistical cookies (sorry, lactose intolerant people you’re going to have to imagine this). But this? This is all wrong. This is like pouring milk, thinking you have cookies only to realize that you actually have no cookies. Then you just stand there thinking why in the world you poured the milk.

Lets take the first graphic for example “How Much Do BART Employees Earn?” When I look at these dots, I have no idea what kind of conclusion I am supposed to draw. Okay, predominantly the people who make the most money, most contributions to pension, most any kind of benefits are those not in Unions. So what? This tells me nothing about the BART organization. This tells me nothing about whether or not the Union is justified in making demands. This just tells me about a comparison that gives me no context to the issue. But man, look at how those circles move when you change that drop-down.

Okay, so lets go a bit further down to “are the demands reasonable?” Here, we have a fairly standard graph with 4 lines. At initial glance, what hops out at you is that MAN THOSE UNION PEOPLE BE RIDICULOUS. Then you start to ask yourself. What is “Index”? What does that measure? Do I generally want to stay above the index or below the index? Is it only the slope that matters or do the actual values matter? Nope, no information. Luckily there is a link below about the “fairness in transportation” that uses the same graph. Clicked-in, found some blog with some fairly large words and complex ideas (which, by the way, are fairly interesting), yet still no explanation of the what the graph is trying to show us.

Maybe the problem lies with how most people view statistics. Most people view statistics as a way of aggregating knowledge. It takes millions and millions of numbers and letters and otherwise seemingly unrelated things and ties them together for us to see. I disagree. Statistics is a way of parsing out all the noise in the world for us to see truth. It allows us to absorb and quantify millions and millions of occurrences of events so that we can being to formulate an opinion about what is truth. And that is what is different. Statistics is not a reporting tool; Statistics is a tool allowing us to dig and claw and reassess our knowledge of truth. And, honestly, the only subtle difference between the two is the story we glean from the statistics.

So. Statistics students of the modern age. I challenge you to be proactive with your statistics. Use your analysis and data visualization to challenge (or reaffirm) your view of the world. Use it to elucidate, to influence, to persuade others with what you see as truth. The numbers do not speak – you will have to be the orator for the single most powerful pool of knowledge in the information age.

Just remember: Statistics is a contact sport – do not be a passive onlooker.


The difference between those with charisma and those without is quite simple.

When someone without charisma tells a good joke, everyone laughs and thinks “nice, that joke was awesome”; however, when someone with charisma tells a good joke, everyone laughs and thinks “hell yeah, this guy is awesome.”

And yeah, that semicolon did happen.


Proudest moment of this summer:

Zhu, Jessica 9:04 AM
my nb count