I've never been good with statistcs, nor believed then very much. It began when all big organs that make opinion polls on my country (Which has 200 million habitants) only asked 2000 people and yet claimed it only had "a margin of error of 2 points". For me it sounded like BS and i was always very loud about it.
Until someone in a comment section told me it was normal and gave me the link to a college level book explaining the formula for that. I didn't understand that, but i thought it was normal, as i had not yet learned statistics in college.
Fast fowards to this semester when i finally had statistics in college (I do CompSci), and apart from the first test (That involved simple stuff such as averages, variance and standard deviation) i went terribly and did not understand anything, so much that i didn't even bother to do the final test.
Pretty much we were just given mathematical formulas without being explained why they were this way nor deducting them.

So i asked for help in a FB group i'm in and some guy gave me a link to an article that was about "pedagogically explaining Pearson's Correlation Coefficient".
It didn't help much as, again, for most of the article i was just being thrown formulas without knowing the why. The worst instance of that was when on the same point he started talking on how measurement units do not matter and then suddenly says, out of nowhere, that z = (x - ?)/?.
I completelly gave up on it on the part it was talking about "outliers and lurking variables" and the author himself said that "not always the results obtained from correlation tables are informative about the relationship between the variables". For me that's like him admitting that it was all BS.
For social issues i already preffer settling things on ethics instead of googling random statistics and graphics of what "gives the best results", since both sides can always google something that agree's with then.
Same thing with economics, which is why i prefer praxeology.