Ad
related to: example of cherry picking datasnowflake.com has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Some scholars classify cherry-picking as a fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. [3] Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality. [4]
Data dredging is an example of disregarding the multiple comparisons problem. One form is when subgroups are compared without alerting the reader to the total number of subgroup comparisons examined. One form is when subgroups are compared without alerting the reader to the total number of subgroup comparisons examined.
Cherry picking, which actually is not selection bias, but confirmation bias, when specific subsets of data are chosen to support a conclusion (e.g. citing examples of plane crashes as evidence of airline flight being unsafe, while ignoring the far more common example of flights that complete safely.
Likewise, some people will select only red cherries or dark purple cherries from a farm. In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking , in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says.
Cherry picking is a practice of using selective facts to present to the public. It refers to the farming practice of picking only ripe cherries. Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position ("cherry picking"). For example, a pharmaceutical company could choose only two trials where their product shows a positive effect ...
Cherry picking (also called card-stacking) Richard Crossman, the British Deputy Director of Psychological Warfare Division (PWD) for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) during the Second World War said "In propaganda truth pays... It is a complete delusion to think of the brilliant propagandist as being a professional liar.
For example, in their 2009 meta-analysis of Selective Exposure Theory, Hart et al. reported that "A 2004 survey by The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (2006) found that Republicans are about 1.5 times more likely to report watching Fox News regularly than are Democrats (34% for Republicans and 20% of Democrats).
In particular, rather than spreading out evenly, it is not uncommon for random data points to form clusters, giving the (false) impression of "hot spots" created by some underlying cause. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal but only focuses on a small subset of that data.