We're all on the spectrum

Comments

• taiyang@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Frequentist statistics are really… silly in a way. And this coming from someone who has to teach it. Sure, p is less than 5%, but you sampled 100,000 people-- an effect size of 0.05 would be significant at this rate. “bUt ItS sIgNiFiCaNt”… Oy.

  source

  • Contramuffin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I get very suspicious if a paper samples multiple groups and still uses p. You would use q in that case, and the fact that they didn’t suggests that nothing came up positive.

    Still, in my opinion it’s generally OK if they only use the screen as a starting point and do follow-up experiments afterwards

    source

    • taiyang@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yeah, I used to work in a field with huge samples so significance wasn’t really all that useful. I usually just report significant coefficients and try to make clear what changes by model. For instance, if a type of curriculum showed improvements on test scores, you simply say how much and, possibly, illustrate it by saying if a person went from 50th percentile to 55th percentile.

      Every field varies, though. I find it crazy how much psychologists I’ve worked with cared about r-squared. To each their own, I guess.

      source
• marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  We don’t. We keep just doing things and good things keep happening afterwards.

  We don’t even know if those two facts are linked in any way.

  source

  • Azuth@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Descartes said it best. The only thing I can know for sure is that I do, in fact, exist.

    source
  • degen@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Nearly irrelevant xkcd

    Image

    At least in software we know where the linchpins are on some level.

    source
• OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The fun part is that we don’t

  source