Show of HandsShow of Hands

droo October 22nd, 2014 6:55pm

Group A is 83% of the population. Group B is 3%. Group A *collectively* contributes more money to charity than Group B. Statistically, is it fair to say an *individual* from Group A is more likely to be charitable than an *individual* from Group B?

8 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

jalapeno verdadero
10/22/14 11:00 pm

Logically that doesn't follow. The answer is D) Not enough information.

Cole12 ...
10/22/14 2:17 pm

From just that information? No, of course not.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
10/22/14 1:45 pm

Not without more information, no. Even if the percentages aligned such that A collectively contributes more than its representation in the population and B collectively contributes less, we still couldn't conclude much from that data without knowing

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
10/22/14 1:46 pm

their respective participation rates (eg, is A's overall contribution higher due to a handful of people who give huge sums? This would tend to suggest that fewer *individuals* within group A participate than the bulk numbers seem to indicate).

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 2:12 pm

Thank you- someone who understands statistics.

bethanyq Ess Eff
10/22/14 2:24 pm

Hooray! Dr. Ponder would be so proud ;)

FacePalm That Trick Never Works
10/22/14 6:33 pm

That's it exactly!

FacePalm That Trick Never Works
10/22/14 6:35 pm

Also, if group A each contributes $1, while group B each contributes $5, the total amounts are still going to skew towards A even though B is more generous.

Arananthi Literal Ninja
10/22/14 12:58 pm

Only if group A collectively contributes 27x more than Group B.

Optimus1
10/22/14 12:44 pm

You asked if it where more likely, then brought in an equation that was not part of the original question. Out this into numbers: 83 A vs 3 B. "Likely" and "odds" have the same meaning in this illustration. So, "odds are, it is more likely that...

Optimus1
10/22/14 12:45 pm

...an "individual" from the 83 will donate than one of the 3.

Optimus1
10/22/14 12:46 pm

But posing your equation, being the actual formula to show who had actually donated more.

Optimus1
10/22/14 12:49 pm

The fair way to ask this question would be, is an atheist more or less likely, based on actual findings, to donate vs Christians?

Optimus1
10/22/14 12:49 pm

Do you have any real numbers? I don't.

voc I am...what I am
10/22/14 12:25 pm

60% of the time, it works every time!

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 11:56 am

The answer is "no". We need the percent per group which donates to charity, and then we need the average amount donated per percent of donaters, to determine who is more likely to be charitable.

Inspired by a group of dumbasses who think that just

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 11:58 am

because Christians collectively donate more to charity than atheists, that makes them more charitable.

1) Christians are an 83% super-majority thus, even if we were to assume that every single Christian and every single atheist donated to charity,

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 11:59 am

There would be an 83:3 ratio, which would mean that the amount Christians donated would be 27 times the amount atheists donated, if every individual in the two groups donated the same amount.

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 12:02 pm

2) I admire more the one who donates without the fear of and orders from a mythical sky daddy than the one who donates *with* the fear of and orders from a mythical sky daddy. One is donating for no reward; the other is avoiding a delusion afterlife.

thebarr
10/22/14 12:31 pm

You're even more wrong than usual about this one, drooski. Although correct about statistics, practically every study shows that per capita giving is far higher among religious than non-religious. Thus your whole argument is moot.

thebarr
10/22/14 12:32 pm

Also, the idea of being rewarded for giving doesn't fit with Christian theology at all. You are predictably way off on that as well.

Two of the thousands of links I could post:

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 11:55 am

This user is currently being ignored

Reply
droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 11:57 am

Statistically, no. Read my above comment.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 11:59 am

This user is currently being ignored

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 12:02 pm

This user is currently being ignored

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 12:03 pm

This user is currently being ignored

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 12:04 pm

I understand your point. The character limit fucks shit up.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 12:06 pm

This user is currently being ignored

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 12:06 pm

This user is currently being ignored

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 12:06 pm

STOP TROLLIN MEH ERMAGERD

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 12:24 pm

Wait, bear with me. I think you mean that statistically, a charitable person is more likely to be Christian, which is true. But my question asked is a Christian more likely to be charitable, which is another question entirely. You see what I'm sayin?

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 12:26 pm

This user is currently being ignored

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 12:28 pm

The question asks is an individual from Group A (a Christian) more likely to be charitable than a person from Group B (an atheist)? But what you're thinking of is if a charitable person is more likely to be a Christian, which they are.

droo Santa Barbara
10/22/14 12:29 pm

A charitable person is more likely to be Christian.

A Christian isn't more likely to be charitable.

My question asks the latter, not the former.

Nemacyst No Lives Matter
10/22/14 12:56 pm

This user is currently being ignored