This article is interesting to me mostly because it appears totally incoherent.
> “Western politicians do not appear to be strong-arming the nerds to produce favourable numbers. At the same time, international statistical bodies worry about the example of Dominik Rozkrut, who at the end of last year was mysteriously dismissed as Poland’s chief statistician.”
At the same time as not strong arming these bodies, at least one might be? What is the implication here?
> “Economic “surprises” in rich countries, where the reported data point either beats or falls short of analysts’ expectations, soared during the pandemic. Years later, surprises remain 30% bigger than before it.
The confusion represents a reversal of a trend. In 1941 Britain’s…”
How is less trust/revisions in the data today connected with what Britain was doing 70+ years ago? We seem to just have two things said next to each other as if they were related?
Am I just being dumb or is this just ramblings, whether or not you agree with the headline?
> At the same time as not strong arming these bodies, at least one might be? What is the implication here?
Yes, exactly. Most don't but one looks like it might be.
> How is less trust/revisions in the data today connected with what Britain was doing 70+ years ago?
Because up until the pandemic the data had been getting steadily better with fewer "surprises", now it seems to have stagnated: "Two factors have now brought progress to a halt."
On the first point, ok sure - it may be the case that most aren’t but one is. So… what’s the reader supposed to take away from that? What’s the problem we’re looking at here - malpractice or corruption? Just both but maybe one more than the other? Seems like bad writing to me.
Second point - ok, great. Let’s actually structure the article around that. “We think that cuts in statistical departments, coupled with lower and more complicated survey engagement, have made it harder to rely on the data those departments produce”. Great, nice, coherent argument.
I’m totally not trying to get at you, I just think TFA did a pretty bad job of explaining the problem it’s trying to highlight.
Hmm. I am trying not to assume too much, but I will attempt to respond based on summaries of some real events in Russia and corporate America.
In organizations, where leadership style resembles Christmas tree more than a pyramid, people invariably are beholden to the leader. Depending on the organization's culture, the leader may allow little to no dissent. While leader may not explicitly tell you to do X, their wishes are known and some people do respond with trying to 'guess' what their leader wants.
In other words, the implication may be that no one is overtly influencing other people, but, in an attempt to save their positions, people produce documentation their leader may want to see.
Which, honestly, happens a lot more often than it should.
Thanks and yes, I agree with you! Reality is muddy and complicated and political tendrils reach deeply into all government functions. I would like to ask though: what do you think the author wants us to believe? a) that data is more unreliable because of corrupt influence, or b) data is less reliable because of statistical department cuts and a partisan audience? If it’s b, why mention a? It’s not that I disagree with b or a, just that if you are arguing for one, why mention the other except to say “yeah, this happened but it doesn’t contradict my view because x”
> “Western politicians do not appear to be strong-arming the nerds to produce favourable numbers. At the same time, international statistical bodies worry about the example of Dominik Rozkrut, who at the end of last year was mysteriously dismissed as Poland’s chief statistician.”
At the same time as not strong arming these bodies, at least one might be? What is the implication here?
> “Economic “surprises” in rich countries, where the reported data point either beats or falls short of analysts’ expectations, soared during the pandemic. Years later, surprises remain 30% bigger than before it. The confusion represents a reversal of a trend. In 1941 Britain’s…”
How is less trust/revisions in the data today connected with what Britain was doing 70+ years ago? We seem to just have two things said next to each other as if they were related?
Am I just being dumb or is this just ramblings, whether or not you agree with the headline?