Page 76 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2666747576777886 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 1236

Thread: Just Plain Wrong

  1. #751
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    Have you taken a statistics class before? Depending on the subject of what you're testing, p < 1%, p < 5%, or p < 10% could all qualify as statistically significant. Anything over 10% is statistically insignificant, because the chances of the event happening by chance are far too great to be deemed different than than the control.
    Wait, so you also believe that 5% of a population can be called "statistically significant"? If so, then you don't have a clue what statistically significant means. Instead of accusing me of not taking a stats course, you should know what you are talking about.

  2. #752
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    You probably weren't going to donate the 100 bucks anyways.
    BTW, I'll certainly donate the $100 when someone actually provides what was asked for instead of posting something totally different and pretends that it was what was asked for.

  3. #753
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    41

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Wait, so you also believe that 5% of a population can be called "statistically significant"? If so, then you don't have a clue what statistically significant means. Instead of accusing me of not taking a stats course, you should know what you are talking about.
    Once again, have you taken a statistics class before?

    Clearly you do not understand how a test is performed. You don't test populations, you test sample sizes (of size n) because measuring entire populations is virtually impossible or impractical. Allow me to explain the most rudimentary concept of statistics you can possibly learn in a statistics class:

    1. You need to test something.
    2. You determine what population it applies to.
    3. You acquire a sample from the population. This sample must not be very small, or else you increase the chances of the data and results being inaccurate.
    4. You have a control group and a "treatment" group (the "treatment" group can be named anything, it is just the group that you are testing. The control group is a group not affected by your test, it is just something to compare your "treatment" group with after the test is performed.)
    5. You randomly (ideally, simple random sample technique) assign members of the sample size to the two groups.
    6. Perform the test.
    7. Get p-value.
    8. If p-value is less than determined alpha (as I posted earlier, 10% is the highest alpha), you can then assume the event is not due to chance, therefore it is statistically significant.


    The most rudimentary concept in statistics. If you still do not understand it after taking a statistics course, well, good luck to you.

  4. #754
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    Once again, have you taken a statistics class before?

    Clearly you do not understand how a test is performed. You don't test populations, you test sample sizes (of size n) because measuring entire populations is virtually impossible or impractical. Allow me to explain the most rudimentary concept of statistics you can possibly learn in a statistics class:

    1. You need to test something.
    2. You determine what population it applies to.
    3. You acquire a sample from the population. This sample must not be very small, or else you increase the chances of the data and results being inaccurate.
    4. You have a control group and a "treatment" group (the "treatment" group can be named anything, it is just the group that you are testing. The control group is a group not affected by your test, it is just something to compare your "treatment" group with after the test is performed.)
    5. You randomly (ideally, simple random sample technique) assign members of the sample size to the two groups.
    6. Perform the test.
    7. Get p-value.
    8. If p-value is less than determined alpha (as I posted earlier, 10% is the highest alpha), you can then assume the event is not due to chance, therefore it is statistically significant.


    The most rudimentary concept in statistics. If you still do not understand it after taking a statistics course, well, good luck to you.


    Excellent. Now that you've done that, go back and read the discussion between ecofarm and me. I'll give you a very small hint: you just supported my side of that discussion.

  5. #755
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,435

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    Oh and this is from Wikipedia. I could have just as easily pulled it from a stat textbook if I still had one on me. I suppose I should have let him look it up himself...but whatever. You probably weren't going to donate the 100 bucks anyways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    That's hilarious.
    It is. The part that he bolded is the part that I quoted and linked to the wiki article (post #740, this thread), before he posted. I posted it above him and he acts like I never seen it. Bizarre.


    Anyway, I know 5% is just the "conventional" or common level of significance. But doesn't that make it more appropriate in context?
    Last edited by ecofarm; 12-22-11 at 03:32 PM.

  6. #756
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    It is. The part that he bolded is the part that I quoted and linked to the wiki article, before he posted. I posted it above him and he acts like I never seen it. Bizarre.


    Anyway, I know 5% is just the "conventional" or common level of significance. But doesn't that make it more appropriate in context?
    And despite your apparent inability to read your own link, it says nothign at all about 5% of a population being statistically significant, which is what your claim was when you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    ... color blindness is probably statistically significant (5%) and this normal.
    Statistical significance is not a measure of a total population. It means that a research finding is not likely to have occurred by chance. It does not mean "5%", as you claimed.

    What the 5% (or whatever p-value Alpha that is chosen) actually means is that there is a 95% certainty that the results were not due to random chance. 5% of the time, though, the results are actually just due to random chance.

    When you called "color-blindness" statistically significant, you were using the term incorrectly.


    Editted to correct terminology error.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 12-22-11 at 03:45 PM.

  7. #757
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    41

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    He never said "5% of a population." I'm not sure if he was referring to a study with the color-blindness, but whether he was or not I'm pretty sure it was assumed that any data or hypothetical reasoning was from a sample, not a population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    +/- one standard deviation from the mean on a normal curve includes 68% of the population. Once you get past one SD from the mean you are firmly in the realm of abnormal, since you are either in the top or bottom 16% with said characteristic.
    This is what I first saw, which (at least in statistics) doesn't make much sense. Especially because 10% on each side of a normal curve is almost always the maximum any statistician would use in determining if something occurred by chance (normally) or due to something else.

  8. #758
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    41

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    I should say that you were right about "5% of a population" being inaccurate and that I made the mistake of thinking you did not understand what you were saying. My bad!

  9. #759
    Guru
    Chaddelamancha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,546

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    But CC said it is defined in stat. Was he trying to hide a value judgement in math?



    Total color blindness is not 1/20. Partial (especially minor) color blindness is probably statistically significant (5%) and this normal.
    To be fair, ecofarm never said 5% of the population. That was Tucker Case. I don't believe that ecofarm meant 5% of the population, instead it meant you could prove the hypothesis that "partial (especially minor) color blindness isn't abnormal" if you used 5% as your level of significance.

    Either way, you are not arguing the same thing. When something falls within two standard deviations (or 95%) it is considered normal. That is different than saying 95% of the population. Tucker Case argued that using the two standard deviations as a model, then color blindness would be considered normal, which is inaccurate, unless the statistical analysis was done on the entire population. I would wager that if you did a statistical analysis on a group (you choose the size), that color blindness would not fall within the two standard deviations.
    Hail to the King baby!

  10. #760
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,435

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaddelamancha View Post
    To be fair, ecofarm never said 5% of the population. That was Tucker Case. I don't believe that ecofarm meant 5% of the population, instead it meant you could prove the hypothesis that "partial (especially minor) color blindness isn't abnormal" if you used 5% as your level of significance.

    Either way, you are not arguing the same thing. When something falls within two standard deviations (or 95%) it is considered normal. That is different than saying 95% of the population. Tucker Case argued that using the two standard deviations as a model, then color blindness would be considered normal, which is inaccurate, unless the statistical analysis was done on the entire population. I would wager that if you did a statistical analysis on a group (you choose the size), that color blindness would not fall within the two standard deviations.
    That's correct. Thank you.

Page 76 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2666747576777886 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •