The question you were responding to was about people bought up in an environment where they had no access to other sources of knowledge. I think a response that suggests that everybody ought to know how to determine fact from fiction is in that context a little heartless.

Thanks for the recommendation on reading a book about stats - which would you recommend? I already work on statistical models in my job and would probably get in trouble if they didn't lead to tangible results so I might even have the book on hand.

You working on statistical models is a scary thought, given that you seemed unable to understand my criticism of my primitive analysis of lofeatgoogle.

I read a book in German (specifically on how to lie with statistics), don't know which ones to recommend in English. There is the obvious one with the name "how to lie with statistics", but it is very old. Otoh, available for free (but I haven't read it).

Feynman, too, don't forget about Feynman. http://www.ar-tiste.com/feynman-on-honesty.html

Thinking, Fast and Slow was a lot about bias, but not sure if it really gets the point across effectively.

Seeing how you interpret my comments, maybe starting with statistics is actually backwards. Perhaps start with language and communication first? Sorry if my comment sounds mean, but it really seems a bit crazy how you try to bend my comments into something outrageous.

Your claims, that the lifeatgoogle twitter showed a bias towards women and PoCs that indicated google wasn't interested in hiring men, aren't the topic that's being communicated in this thread.

I didn't say they were.

Why did you bring it up then?