This is one of my favorites:
One entry per answer. (This is in the vein of the Stack Overflow question What’s your favorite “programmer” cartoon?.)
P.S. Do not hotlink the cartoon without the site's permission please.
10
-
$\begingroup$ @sharpie: are jokes out? We obviously don't want the entire site to be humor, but everyone benefits from a little educational humor in small doses. $\endgroup$ – Shane Jul 22 '10 at 5:15
-
$\begingroup$ @Sharpie, feel free to close or reopen according to your feelings! I agree with Shane, a bit is ok, but not too much. For example, this question already included a funny cartoon. The jokes question not really a funny joke.... $\endgroup$ – Peter Smit Jul 22 '10 at 13:58
-
42$\begingroup$ These cartoons are useful too; they can be included in a lecture on a particular topic where you are trying to explain a concept (e.g. correlation/causation above). A little humor can help to keep an audience engaged. $\endgroup$ – Shane Jul 22 '10 at 14:22
-
9$\begingroup$ According to the tour, this question should be closed, since it is a question that has "too many possible answers" and since it is "primarily opinion-based". I'm not complaining, just surprised it has stayed open for this long. $\endgroup$ – Flimm Dec 9 '14 at 10:29
-
5$\begingroup$ Data Science analogy to cartoon in OP. Data Scientist: I went to data science bootcamp and learned how to find correlations in big data. Those insights can be converted into big money. Statistician: But many of those correlations are spurious. Correlation does not imply causation. Data Scientist: Don't give me none of that century old statistics mumbo-jumbo. This is big data. That means the data has everything. So by definition, all relationships in the data are correct. I ring the cash register while you snooze and lose, grandpa. $\endgroup$ – Mark L. Stone Dec 19 '15 at 22:42
|
Show 5 more comments
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
-
39$\begingroup$ Did anyone else notice that the tour guide changes colors between the second and third frames? $\endgroup$ – assumednormal Aug 22 '12 at 20:41
-
9$\begingroup$ On RANDU: "We guarantee that each number is random individually, but we don't guarantee that more than one of them is random." $\endgroup$ – Iain Samuel McLean Elder Mar 18 '14 at 15:11
-
$\begingroup$ Link not working, was it this one dilbert.com/strip/2001-10-25 ? $\endgroup$ – Tim♦ Jan 27 '15 at 19:27
2
-
12$\begingroup$ You can't read this one without the alt text. it said something like "But because of that we're totally breaking up" $\endgroup$ – generic_user Mar 10 '14 at 18:16
-
$\begingroup$ @generic_user The alt text (mouseover text) reads: "... okay, but because you said that, we're breaking up." $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Wang Nov 8 '20 at 1:05
2
-
10$\begingroup$ Definitively my favorite cartoon about Data Mining $\endgroup$ – steffen Dec 1 '10 at 12:24
-
$\begingroup$ Link not working. Was it this one: dilbert.com/strip/2008-05-07 ? $\endgroup$ – Tim♦ Jan 27 '15 at 19:27
2
...-
8$\begingroup$ This one reminds me of the recent bailout in the States, where they just made up 700 billion number - they said they just wanted a really large number. :) $\endgroup$ – Roman Luštrik Aug 12 '10 at 8:53
-
1$\begingroup$ Fixed. I had to add some dots after the cartoon since SE didn't allow me to submit the changes :-\ $\endgroup$ – Ching Chong Feb 5 '15 at 11:30
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
One of my favorites from xckd:
Random Number
RFC 1149.5 specifies 4 as the standard IEEE-vetted random number.
-
2
-
1
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
From: A visual comparison of normal and paranormal distributions Matthew Freeman J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:6. Lower caption says 'Paranormal Distribution' - no idea why the graphical artifact is occuring.
-
3$\begingroup$ I think this version of the joke works better (from oneweirdkerneltrick.com), though apparently this version was seven years earlier. $\endgroup$ – Danica Feb 3 '15 at 1:06
-
$\begingroup$ this isn't really funny. it's more of a twist on english terms $\endgroup$ – user46925 Mar 7 '16 at 18:20
-
1$\begingroup$ @zero "A twist on English terms" describes a great many jokes $\endgroup$ – Fomite Mar 7 '16 at 18:22
-
$\begingroup$ Yeah - I think all those jokes suck. There is no underlying statistical humour. This joke should be put on the English stackexchange instead. $\endgroup$ – user46925 Mar 7 '16 at 18:23
-
$\begingroup$ @Phil: In the 2-dimensional version linked by Dougal, the "paranormal distribution" is indeed a (bizarrely truncated) distribution; so the joke has some statistical content. It doesn't work in one dimension, where your comment certainly applies. $\endgroup$ – John Bentin Jun 19 '16 at 17:47
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
'So, uh, we did the green study again and got no link. It was probably a--' 'RESEARCH CONFLICTED ON GREEN JELLY BEAN/ACNE LINK; MORE STUDY RECOMMENDED!'
xkcd: significant
-
15$\begingroup$ This is by far my favorite cartoon of all time. It's super educational. It really gets to the heart of the definition of a p-value. In fact, I bet that less than 10% the students who pass a college freshman "intro to stats" class get this joke, and this makes me sad. $\endgroup$ – WetlabStudent Jan 15 '14 at 3:36
-
4$\begingroup$ Maybe so! Fortunately for freshmen, @Glen_b has offered an excellent breakdown here. $\endgroup$ – Nick Stauner Feb 27 '14 at 1:03
-
2
-
4$\begingroup$ this is a pretty good joke as it clearly demonstrates why repeated multiple testing is dangerous. For anyone interested check out Bonferi correction to deal with this. $\endgroup$ – user46925 Mar 7 '16 at 18:21
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
-
8$\begingroup$ That's great. The standard way of dealing with outliers. $\endgroup$ – Shane Jul 26 '10 at 20:06
-
2
-
1
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
This isn't technically a cartoon, but close enough:
-
10$\begingroup$ That's definitely my favorite. I always have to stop on this and laugh when scrolling over this page. It's just so bad!! $\endgroup$ – Henrik Sep 9 '10 at 9:02
-
1$\begingroup$ +1 'Natch, Randal Munroe has a sweet variation on this. $\endgroup$ – Alexis Sep 24 '19 at 15:29
-
$\begingroup$ Yep: a pie is a pie chart telling you how much pie is left. $\endgroup$ – Adrian Keister Mar 31 '20 at 21:03
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Nice. The importance of variance when thinking about a population.
-
1
-
2
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
3
this too:
-
4$\begingroup$ To be honest, those are the bad physicists. The good physicists stick around and make a name for themselves. $\endgroup$ – Iterator Aug 6 '11 at 3:17
-
3
-
2
2
-
1
-
1$\begingroup$ It was taken from Mike West's website: stat.duke.edu/~mw/fineart.html $\endgroup$ – ebony1 Aug 31 '10 at 16:23
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
And another one from xkcd.
Title: Self-Description
The mouseover text:
The contents of any one panel are dependent on the contents of every panel including itself. The graph of panel dependencies is complete and bidirectional, and each node has a loop. The mouseover text has two hundred and forty-two characters.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Here is a nice one (the inadequacy about average ratings)
-
$\begingroup$ Kinda disappointed that Munroe did not work "selection bias" into the text. $\endgroup$ – Alexis Sep 24 '19 at 15:32
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Another one from xkcd:
Alt-text:
Hell, my eighth grade science class managed to conclusively reject it just based on a classroom experiment. It's pretty sad to hear about million-dollar research teams who can't even manage that.
-
2
1
-
$\begingroup$ Looks like this one needs an updated image. $\endgroup$ – Nick Orlando Feb 24 '15 at 20:45
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
I liked this one:
This is probably fun to show in class as well...
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
More about design and power than analysis, but I like this one
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Source: unknown. Posted on flowingdata.com.
-
$\begingroup$ There could be a secondary y-axis labeled "Ballerina chicken with cloaca". $\endgroup$ – Waldir Leoncio Jan 31 '19 at 9:38
1
-
$\begingroup$ This chart is wrong, correct percentage is about fifty-fifty. $\endgroup$ – juliohm Mar 10 '14 at 16:09
1
-
3$\begingroup$ yeah but.... this one isn't true... it mostly depends on how you parameterize the time variable $t$... i guess if you go back far enough, but come on... $\endgroup$ – William Sep 22 '11 at 17:24
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
I found this from a NoSQL presentation, but the cartoon can be found directly at
http://browsertoolkit.com/fault-tolerance.png
-
12
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
A classic...
-
$\begingroup$ "Because medical research findings can be difficult to reconcile, are not always pre-digested, and can seem overwhelming to us casual observers, let us make fun of those who dedicate their lives to obtaining them." $\endgroup$ – rolando2 Feb 9 '14 at 0:53
-
15$\begingroup$ @rolando2 As a medical researcher, I find the sensationalist incompetence of mainstream science reporters hilarious. $\endgroup$ – Superbest Feb 26 '14 at 12:08
-
$\begingroup$ There's a listserv from HealthNewsReview devoted to evaluating media handling of health research findings. $\endgroup$ – rolando2 Mar 9 '15 at 14:14
-
4$\begingroup$ As a statistician, I find the sensationalist incompetence of mainstream "data analysts" hilarious. $\endgroup$ – StatsStudent Mar 7 '16 at 21:35
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
Allright, I think this one is hilarious- but let's see if it passes the Statistical Analysis Miller test.
Fermirotica
I love how Google handles dimensional analysis. Stats are ballpark and vary wildly by time of day and whether your mom is in town.
-
19$\begingroup$ Statistical voyeurism? And there we were wondering what to call the site... $\endgroup$ – walkytalky Jul 23 '10 at 15:48
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
From xkcd:
This is data analysis in the form of a cartoon, and I find it particularly poignant.
The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.
8
-
14
-
2
-
-
$\begingroup$ @EngrStudent: they're simultaneously off both ends of the tasty scale. $\endgroup$ – naught101 Aug 21 '13 at 1:35
-
3
