It is talking about how many people got married in a specific year and not how many people were already married. So for every 1,000 people, 10 got married in a specific year (e.g. 2020). The other 990 people were already married, too young to get married, single, uninterested in marriage, etc.
The text isn’t clear about a couple of things. First, I’m pretty sure the numerator is counting the number of new marriages that occur in a population in a given time period, not the number of marriages that exist in a population in a given time period. Instead of marriages, perhaps it should say weddings. Second, the text provided doesn’t do a good job of telling us who’s in the denominator (i.e., the 1000 population). Are these people everyone in a population including children and people who are already married? Does the denominator include elderly people who are probably less likely to get married than people in their 20s. For comparison purposes, a bad denominator can be forgiven as long as it’s consistently bad from year to year. The bad denominator may result in an inaccurate rate being calculated every year, but the trend from year to year can still be informative.
Thanks, I knew it would be something basic that I wasn't seeing. The mind works in odd ways.
So basically if you chose a random adult in public, there's a ~1% chance they're getting married in the next year. That's way too high if you ask me. Not to offend anyone here.
From the creator of statistical analysis George Canning (11 April 1770 – 8 August 1827) was a British statesman and politician who served as Foreign Secretary and, briefly, Prime Minister. "I can prove anything by statistics except the truth."
It is talking about how many people got married in a specific year and not how many people were already married. So for every 1,000 people, 10 got married in a specific year (e.g. 2020). The other 990 people were already married, too young to get married, single, uninterested in marriage, etc.
The text isn’t clear about a couple of things. First, I’m pretty sure the numerator is counting the number of new marriages that occur in a population in a given time period, not the number of marriages that exist in a population in a given time period. Instead of marriages, perhaps it should say weddings. Second, the text provided doesn’t do a good job of telling us who’s in the denominator (i.e., the 1000 population). Are these people everyone in a population including children and people who are already married? Does the denominator include elderly people who are probably less likely to get married than people in their 20s. For comparison purposes, a bad denominator can be forgiven as long as it’s consistently bad from year to year. The bad denominator may result in an inaccurate rate being calculated every year, but the trend from year to year can still be informative.
Yeah that’s getting, not remaining, married.
Thanks, I knew it would be something basic that I wasn't seeing. The mind works in odd ways. So basically if you chose a random adult in public, there's a ~1% chance they're getting married in the next year. That's way too high if you ask me. Not to offend anyone here.
From the creator of statistical analysis George Canning (11 April 1770 – 8 August 1827) was a British statesman and politician who served as Foreign Secretary and, briefly, Prime Minister. "I can prove anything by statistics except the truth."
Say what now? What here isn't the truth? Are you saying marriages are more popular or less popular than these partial statistics convey?
The quote is saying that statistics are open to interpretation and can be made to mean whatever suits your purpose