Skeptical Consumerism

Statistics don’t lie; people using statistics lie.

People can turn and twist numbers to tell whatever story they want. They do it for profit, marketing, perception, and a wide array of other reasons. Ultimately, it’s up to us to decipher what we’re being told and educate ourselves. But why is this important? As both a citizen and consumer, you want to avoid being tricked and deceived by government and businesses.

So how do numbers lie to you? They’re just plots on a chart or tallies on a page right? That’s true, but sometimes you have to question who is interpreting the data and what point are they trying to prove.

Take a look at the anti-trust suit filed against Microsoft in the late 90s. It alleged that Microsoft had over a 95% monopoly in the market that allowed them to illegally hinder their competition (Netscape Navigator). That statement in and of itself seems simple enough right? But what is the market? In this particular case, the market was defined as computer operating systems for stand-alone personal computers (used by one person at a time) utilizing microchips designed and manufactured by Intel. So that 95% market share seems a little less impressive when you realize that these strictly defined parameters means that the ‘market’ doesn’t even include any Apple computers, certain Linux systems, or any of the Sun Microsystems used on multiple computer systems at the time. So yeah, it’s like saying Microsoft had a dominant share of Windows PCs. No shit.

How about another simple phrase you hear pretty often: ‘household income.’ News sources love to report that household income has increased or decreased over the year or over a president’s term. But let me ask you, what defines a household? My friend will tell me that a household is defined as a married couple filing taxes jointly. Another friend will say that it is everyone living at the same address which may include an aunt, parents, cousins and children. Do you see how this is open to interpretation? Do you know how Fox News or the New York Times survey defined their criteria? Sometimes you have to do a little research.

Personally, when I hear household income I know we’re not being serious. Imagine a situation where two parents each make $50,000 and a son makes $20,000. The household income is $120,000. Now say that the parents each get a pay raise to $55,000 and the son begins making $50,000. The son decides he’s making enough to move out on his own. The parents’ household income is $110,000 and the son’s is $50,000. In this sample, the average household income just decreased from $120,000 to $80,000 (a 33% decrease) even though everyone is making more money and overall wealth has increased! My friend’s explanation, however, would have told me that the household income went from $100,000 to $110,000 (a 10% increase!) since the son would have filed single taxes.

Numbers are often used in advertising in an attempt to mislead you. As long as the companies don’t lie, they can legally be pretty tricky.

Television refresh rates are measured in hertz. Generally, they are somewhere between 60 and 120Hz. Consumers (myself included) look at TVs and see 120 or 240 in big numbers on the box and immediately think that I’m getting a 120 or 240Hz refresh rate. Not necessarily the truth. Look at my Samsung TV. In small letters under the big 240 are the words ‘Motion Rate’. A quick search online will tell me that the refresh rate is only 120Hz. Samsung developed their own proprietary name for their refresh speed so that they could market their TVs as better than their competition just by using a higher number! They’re not the only ones who do this. LG and Panasonic do the same thing with their TruMotion and Image Motion (Image motion even calls it Hz!). Be a smart consumer. Be skeptical and read the fine print.

Scientific studies are just as susceptible to biased reporting. I’m not saying that they report facts inaccurately, but occasionally generalizations are made or specific details are left out. Look at the popular documentary ‘Forks Over Knives.’ In the film, the doctors cite studies in China and India as a basis of their belief in plant based diets. They described ‘animal’ proteins being fed to rats and showed the rates of cancer compared to rats that ate no ‘animal’ protein. Note how they never mention in the film exactly what the animal protein is. Turns out, it’s casein. A protein that is found in milk and other dairy products. Dairy, specifically, is a product believed to be negative to your health (probably why Paleo diets stay away from it). So, why would the authors make the large jump to say that all animal proteins are bad for you? Maybe there is more evidence that they don’t share (although the evidence that they do share is vague and sparse) or maybe they have an agenda like selling their books and products.

I’m not saying that the doctors behind the film are wrong, I’m imploring you to do your own research into opinionated pieces and take things with a grain of salt. Take this mindset along with you whenever you make a purchase or read the news. Don’t just read the flashy design on the box – read the fine print – don’t just read the headline; read the article!