The thing about my way of teaching stats is that my cool, novel examples get old really fast. Like, pop culture is on a thirty-day cycle. Anyway, YEARS ago, 2014 to be exact, I blogged about illustrating bimodal data distributions using baby name data from the Social Security Administration. Specifically, when an older name comes back into vogue, it has a bimodal distribution when you plot time on the X axis. I stand by this example. However, all of the data illustrations come from 2014. When our traditionally aged college students were 6 or 7. Which makes this example feel a little stale. However, here is some data, courtesy of Redditor fevaah , showing old names that are back in vogue through 2025 ! And Eleanor, Violet, Nora, and Hazel are here, illustrating bimodal distributions for a new generation. If you used my old baby-name data, this is a quick, easy refresh for your lectures (or a fun new addition if you didn't). If this idea was help...
This is a fine example of using misleading statistics to try and make an argument. USA Today tweeted out this graphic , related to some data that was collected by some firm. There appear to be a number of method issues with this data, so a number of ways to use this in your class: 1) False Dichotomy: Survey response options should be mutually exclusive. I think there are two types of muddled dichotomies with this data: a) What is "essential"? When my kids were younger, I had an online subscription for diapers. Those were absolutely essential and I received a discount on my order since it was a subscription. However, according to this survey dichotomy, are they an indulgence since they were a subscription that originated online. b) Many purchases fall into multiple categories. Did the survey creators "double-dip" as to pad each mean and push the data towards it's $18K conclusion? Were participants clear that "drinks out with frien...