From the book – “How Not To Be Wrong” by Jordan Ellenberg
During World War II, numerous fighter planes were getting hit by anti-aircraft guns. Air Force officers wanted to add some protective armor/ shield to the planes. The question was “where”?
The planes could only support few more kilos of weight. A group of mathematicians and engineers were called for a short consulting project.
Fighter planes returning from missions were analysed for bullet holes per square foot.They found 1.93 bullet holes/sq. foot near the tail of the planes whereas only 1.11 bullet holes/sq. foot close to the engine. The Air Force officers thought that since the tail portion had the greatest density of bullets, that would be the logical location for putting an anti-bullet shield.
A mathematician named Abraham Wald said exactly the opposite; more protection is needed where the bullet holes aren’t – that is -around the engines. His judgment surprised everyone. He said “We are counting the planes that returned from a mission. Planes with lots of bullet holes in the engine did not return at all.”
If you go to the recovery room at the hospital, you’ll see a lot more people with bullet holes in their legs than people with bullet holes in their chests.That’s not because people don’t get shot in the chest; it’s because the people who get shot in the chest don’t recover.
Remember the words of Einstein – “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.”
Why lack of data is also an important part of data analysis?
We all have been used to hearing the phrase ‘We need data analysis to take decisions’. However, a lot of times, we get into the’data’ itself so much that ‘analysis’ takes a back seat.
Therefore, it is imperative that while analyzing situations, you do not just look at the information itself, but the way information was collected, the sources used and the conditions in which information was collected. On a wholesome understanding, that can give a result that is valid.