Top Pages
biases
cognitive effects
fallacies
deception with statistics
effective business writing
body language
Emotive Comparisons
Spotting Emotive or Disingenuous Comparisons in Statistics
Many of those who need to influence the public are highly proficient at using comparisons to make their assertions more powerful. Their tricks include:- Manipulating the time frame to ensure a good fit for the claim.
- Using comparison "yardsticks" that seem bigger or smaller than reality.

Beware of Time Frames

When someone presents a statistic that looks as though it's designed to influence, I would advise closer scrutiny. You may find that the underlying facts themselves are questionable. In the case of this argument, Greenpeace suggests the GHG impact by deforestation is 18–24%, but others – with no apparent agenda – assess it as 6–8%.
Beware of the "Yardsticks"
Why did they choose Belgium? This is also part of the emotive reporting. Belgium covers 30,528 sq km, but Indonesia covers 1,904,569 sq km. If they had used something the same size as Indonesia, the result would have been less "impressive". Belgium is small but well known. It sounds bigger than it is. And why Germany? Well, that was also carefully selected in this statistic. Germany is big, and it's renowned for being industrially active, but its GHG emissions are impressively low.It's a good idea when presenting statistics to use values that people can understand. Telling people sizes in "football pitches" as opposed to hectares is useful, or, for big areas, using a comparison like "the size of Wales" is also useful for British people. However, when those presenting statistics start using seemingly random descriptors (like Belgium and Germany), be mindful that you're very likely looking at statistics that are designed to be emotive. They're meant to influence not to inform.

- Do you disagree with something on this page?
- Did you spot a typo?
- Do you know a bias or fallacy that we've missed?