All language subtitles for 13. Selection bias

af Afrikaans
ak Akan
sq Albanian
am Amharic
ar Arabic
hy Armenian
az Azerbaijani
eu Basque
be Belarusian
bem Bemba
bn Bengali
bh Bihari
bs Bosnian
br Breton
bg Bulgarian
km Cambodian
ca Catalan
ceb Cebuano
chr Cherokee
ny Chichewa
zh-CN Chinese (Simplified)
zh-TW Chinese (Traditional)
co Corsican
hr Croatian
cs Czech
da Danish
nl Dutch
en English
eo Esperanto
et Estonian
ee Ewe
fo Faroese
tl Filipino
fi Finnish
fr French
fy Frisian
gaa Ga
gl Galician
ka Georgian
de German
gn Guarani
gu Gujarati
ht Haitian Creole
ha Hausa
haw Hawaiian
iw Hebrew
hi Hindi
hmn Hmong
hu Hungarian
is Icelandic
ig Igbo
id Indonesian
ia Interlingua
ga Irish
it Italian
ja Japanese
jw Javanese
kn Kannada
kk Kazakh
rw Kinyarwanda
rn Kirundi
kg Kongo
ko Korean
kri Krio (Sierra Leone)
ku Kurdish
ckb Kurdish (Soranรฎ)
ky Kyrgyz
lo Laothian
la Latin
lv Latvian
ln Lingala
lt Lithuanian
loz Lozi
lg Luganda
ach Luo
lb Luxembourgish
mk Macedonian
mg Malagasy
ms Malay
ml Malayalam
mt Maltese
mi Maori
mr Marathi
mfe Mauritian Creole
mo Moldavian
mn Mongolian
my Myanmar (Burmese)
sr-ME Montenegrin
ne Nepali
pcm Nigerian Pidgin
nso Northern Sotho
no Norwegian
nn Norwegian (Nynorsk)
oc Occitan
or Oriya
om Oromo
ps Pashto
fa Persian
pt-BR Portuguese (Brazil)
pt Portuguese (Portugal)
pa Punjabi
qu Quechua
ro Romanian
rm Romansh
nyn Runyakitara
ru Russian
sm Samoan
gd Scots Gaelic
sr Serbian
sh Serbo-Croatian
st Sesotho
tn Setswana
crs Seychellois Creole
sn Shona
sd Sindhi
si Sinhalese
sk Slovak
sl Slovenian
so Somali
es Spanish
es-419 Spanish (Latin American)
su Sundanese
sw Swahili
sv Swedish
tg Tajik
ta Tamil
tt Tatar
te Telugu
th Thai
ti Tigrinya
to Tonga
lua Tshiluba
tum Tumbuka
tr Turkish
tk Turkmen
tw Twi
ug Uighur
uk Ukrainian
ur Urdu
uz Uzbek
vi Vietnamese
cy Welsh
wo Wolof
xh Xhosa
yi Yiddish
yo Yoruba
zu Zulu

Original subtitles

- 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.