Afrikaans
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bemba
Bengali
Bihari
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Catalan
Cebuano
Cherokee
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Ewe
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Ga
Galician
Georgian
German
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Indonesian
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Kinyarwanda
Kirundi
Kongo
Korean
Krio (Sierra Leone)
Kurdish
Kurdish (Soranรฎ)
Kyrgyz
Laothian
Latin
Latvian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Lozi
Luganda
Luo
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mauritian Creole
Moldavian
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Montenegrin
Nepali
Nigerian Pidgin
Northern Sotho
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Oromo
Pashto
Persian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Quechua
Romanian
Romansh
Runyakitara
Russian
Samoan
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Setswana
Seychellois Creole
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish
Spanish (Latin American)
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Tatar
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tonga
Tshiluba
Tumbuka
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Uighur
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Wolof
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu
- Hi, I'm William Lidwell and this
is Universal Principles of Design.
In this movie, Selection Bias.
How the dots we collect influence the dots we connect.
During World War II, a statistician
by the name of Abraham Wald
was tasked to research how allied bombers
were being felled by enemy fire.
The idea was that by identifying areas of vulnerability
in the bombers, we would know where to add armor,
increasing the survivability of bombers on future missions.
So Wald beautifully collected data based on bomber damage
and then rendered the results of his analysis
on a diagram of an aircraft that looks something like this.
The red dots represent bulletholes and flak damage.
Looking at his data, where would you add the armor?
If you're like most people, the answer seems obvious.
You add the armor where the damage is.
Where the red dots are.
But remember, Walt's data were based
on aircraft that had survived.
That had successfully made it back.
The data did not include the bombers that were shot down.
Walt of course knew this.
He knew the data were biased in this way.
A bias called selection bias.
And because of this understanding, he drew to me,
a mind-blowingly ingenious and counterintuitive conclusion.
Wald said we should add armor
to the areas with no damage, with no red dots.
Because the bombers hit in the red areas came home.
The ones that didn't come home
must have been hit in the non-red areas.
Brilliant.
Why do people so consistently draw the wrong conclusion
when confronted with data like this?
The answer is simple.
Humans are pattern-detecting and pattern-making machines.
When we see dots, we try to connect them.
It's reflexive.
It is only when we, like Wald,
understand the perils of biases like selection bias
that we pause and make sure the dots
that have been collected are worthy of connecting.
So what is selection bias?
Stated simply, selection bias is a bias
in the way evidence is collected
that distorts our analysis and conclusions.
In the case of Wald's damaged bombers,
the evidence was biased through no bad intentions or faults.
The downed planes simply were not
available for consideration.
But this is often not the case.
People who want to persuade often cherry pick data
that support their position and exclude data that negate it.
Resulting in evidence that appears convincing
but that is not representative of the truth.
For example, climate change denialists
typically cherry-pick climate data from just the last decade
which indicates flat or declining global temperatures
ignoring the clear longer term historical trend.
How can we prevent selection bias?
It's surprisingly simple in theory,
a little harder in practice.
When you're dealing with a small population,
meaning a small number of things
about which you're collecting data,
like a classroom of students.
You collect data from everyone, all of the students.
If all members of a population are represented
in your analysis, there can be no selection bias.
Unfortunately, in most real world situations,
it is neither possible nor practical to do this.
A number of members in a population is too large,
or as with the bombers, just not available.
In these cases, the key is random sampling.
You must randomly select members
from the available population.
A truly random sample prevents selection bias.
You just need to make sure that you sample
from the full set of things you're generalizing about.
For example, Walt collected data from a subset of bombers.
The ones that returned.
But needed to generalize the results to all bombers.
This is why adding armor to the red areas was wrong.
The sample of damaged bombers was not random,
and so did not generalize the full set.
Similarly, if you surveyed a random group of Mac users,
you couldn't generalize to PC users.
So whether your knowledge of selection bias
helps you do better design research
or think more critically about how data and statistics
are used to persuade and drive decision making.
Remember the only way to connect the right dots
is to collect the right dots.
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.