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 remix of a bunch of posts. I brought them together because they fit a common theme: Examples that use actual data that researchers collected but still manage to lie or mislead with real data. So, lying with facts. These examples hit upon a number of themes in my stats classes: 1) Statistics in the wild 2) Teaching our students to sniff out bad statistics 3) Vivid examples are easier to remember than boring examples. Here we go: Making Graphs Fox News using accurate data and inaccurate charts to make unemployment look worse than it is. Misleading with Central Tendency The mean cost of a wedding in 2004 might have been $28K...if you assume that all couples used all possible services, and paid for all of the services. Also, maybe the median would have been the more appropriate measure to report. Don't like the MPG for the vehicles you are manufacturing? Try testing your cars under ideal, non-real world conditions to fix that. Then get fined by the EPA. Mis...