New997buyer
Fuji
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 9,146
Ahem.....
A few passing comments have been made about the USA figures under the umbrella of 'fact'. Here's some fact%.
1) The figures quoted are for engine failure 'claims' not 'IMSB failure' rates. Anyone wanting to appreciate the difference either read some previous threads or a book and reliable data. ('Reliable data' is a clue).
2) The figures illustrate a 'claim' variance from 4% to 8% without stating how this is spread. So quoting 4% or 8# is just plain wrong. It's between 4-8%.
3) I point this out not to suggest IMSB isn't a very rare but serious event (which is where I think the debate should end). Instead it is me highlighting the lack of reliability in that data. That's good scientific method where you acknowledge the limitations in your approach. There are significant limitations in the USA data that affects its reliability. Just as there are in this poll and the one on pistonheads site.
Here's an extract from the Harris Case. Feel free to read it all:
The challenge with this whole issue is not just the lack of data, but the human incapability to process risk. And we have lots of reliable data on this. 1% and 7% will 'feel' the same to most as they fixate on the 'loaded chamber'. For more information on human cognition and flaws in interpreting and accepting risk read some behavioural economists like Thaler. For basics on heuristics and biases like Kahneman. For other related cognition flaws read behavioural psychologists such as Ariely). But to reiterate the problem isn't just with the problem in confirming if it's 1% or 10%. It's flaws in coping with risk itself. It's the inability to rationally deal with it. That's why you get these huge threads.
And much of the confdence held by some in their views on IMSB arise less from data and more from worldview.
Nothing on here will change that as it hasn't arisen because the data is unreliable (or where it has been collated reliably) but because humans are just rubbish at this stuff.
But it's a nice fun exercise so good luck with it. And it's nice to see thread extolling the many wonderful virtues of the 996. For me the low price of purchase is actually one :thumb:
A few passing comments have been made about the USA figures under the umbrella of 'fact'. Here's some fact%.
1) The figures quoted are for engine failure 'claims' not 'IMSB failure' rates. Anyone wanting to appreciate the difference either read some previous threads or a book and reliable data. ('Reliable data' is a clue).
2) The figures illustrate a 'claim' variance from 4% to 8% without stating how this is spread. So quoting 4% or 8# is just plain wrong. It's between 4-8%.
3) I point this out not to suggest IMSB isn't a very rare but serious event (which is where I think the debate should end). Instead it is me highlighting the lack of reliability in that data. That's good scientific method where you acknowledge the limitations in your approach. There are significant limitations in the USA data that affects its reliability. Just as there are in this poll and the one on pistonheads site.
Here's an extract from the Harris Case. Feel free to read it all:
The challenge with this whole issue is not just the lack of data, but the human incapability to process risk. And we have lots of reliable data on this. 1% and 7% will 'feel' the same to most as they fixate on the 'loaded chamber'. For more information on human cognition and flaws in interpreting and accepting risk read some behavioural economists like Thaler. For basics on heuristics and biases like Kahneman. For other related cognition flaws read behavioural psychologists such as Ariely). But to reiterate the problem isn't just with the problem in confirming if it's 1% or 10%. It's flaws in coping with risk itself. It's the inability to rationally deal with it. That's why you get these huge threads.
And much of the confdence held by some in their views on IMSB arise less from data and more from worldview.
Nothing on here will change that as it hasn't arisen because the data is unreliable (or where it has been collated reliably) but because humans are just rubbish at this stuff.
But it's a nice fun exercise so good luck with it. And it's nice to see thread extolling the many wonderful virtues of the 996. For me the low price of purchase is actually one :thumb:
