The Tyranny of Numbers: Mismeasurement and Misrule (1995)
archive.org
archive.org
One of the things that often irritates me when dealing with topics of politics, is the absurdity of trusting graphs and data points that don't extrapolate on where their data for those graphs came from. And when there is some sort of explanation available, it often just leads to the understanding that they did not use a random enough sample to avoid selection biases. Often times, I don't get to see much more of a source on the accuracy of the data other than some variance declaration dictating that there could be a 1-2 degree of variability in the data's accuracy. Something like that.
It's nice that they include that, but I want to know more. Especially in politics, because liars abound are everywhere.
1. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691174952/th...
If I can find it again, I will link it to you here.
Edit: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317139233_The_Tyran...
Not "The article" in question, but definitely another good addition to the topic at hand. Also vaguely familiar to the article I read long ago, but this is newer.
My article I am thinking of came from back in the 2000's I think. I believe it was based on Tyranny of Numbers mostly.