)"Statistics" can be defined as "a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data."
As a result of statistical studies on groups ("masses of numerical data") people draw conclusions based on patterns or trends they observe. (People draw conclusions, raw statistical data do not.)
In general, the larger the group ("sample"), the more reliable, consistent, any observed trends. (This says nothing of causes however.) Conversely, the smaller the group, the less reliable.
The extreme case of a small group is an individual within a "population".
Statistics related to the population does not necessarily apply to a particular person. The unemployment rate need not discourage a competent, resourceful person from finding the right job, for instance. (Say to yourself, "I am one person looking for one suitable position.")
Remember that even "experts" and professionals (employment advisors, etc.) can be wrong in a particular case - and this may be all right with them, and their reputations, as long as in the long run, over many cases, the (large) numbers prove them "right".
At the beginning of my office career, I worked with an accountant who, otherwise considered to be intelligent, continually applied statistical conclusions to individuals - drawing conclusions, making judgements, regarding others (including me) based on observations on groups. Over the years, we kept in touch, off and on, and have both undergone major career changes; however, this tendency in him to generalize inappropriately appears to remain little changed. I couldn't agree with him then, and cannot now.
Generalizing inappropriately reinforces stereotypes and, yes, prejudice. It is a disservice to the individual.
I use this person as an early example of a "teacher" by counterexample. There have been numerous others since - most lessons having nothing at all to do with the laws of large numbers (statistics).
Raymond T. Kaya
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
www.reikialoha.com/raymond