Orton's Arm Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 During the eugenics debate, a few of my adversaries made the erroneous claim that I don't understand statistics. I'm a little curious as to how well these people actually understand the subject themselves, so I'll pose a little test. I've already seen a statistics-oriented professor get this one wrong, so I won't automatically assume that anyone who does this for a living will get the right answer. Here goes. A survey is given out to people. Its intention is to determine which factors influence a person's decision to join the chess club. One of the questions is, "upon entering college, did you seriously consider joining the chess club? Yes or No." Based on the responses to that question, people were divided into the Interested and Uninterested groups. Both groups of people were also asked a series of questions of the following type: "On a scale from 1 - 5, how much would free snacks have influenced your decision to join the chess club?" The chess club wants to know the extent to which free snacks will influence someone's decision to join. There are two methodologies for determining this, but only one is correct. Method 1: Separate the survey respondents into Interested and Uninterested. See if there's a statistically significant difference between the two groups' preference for snacks. If there is, and if Interested people are significantly more likely to prefer snacks than Untinterested people, it's a signal that a preference for snacks is causing people to join the chess club. Ergo, the chess club should offer free snacks. Method 2: Separate the survey respondents into Interested and Uninterested. Ignore those who are Uninterested. Whichever things the Interested group said would make the biggest difference; these the chess club should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Method 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 HA, just curious are you white protestant of German or Afrikaaner decent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 are you white protestant of German? 817170[/snapback] I am, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 I am, what's your point? 817172[/snapback] But your not posting the crap he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 I am, what's your point? 817172[/snapback] Sorry to laugh at the egg on your face, VA Bills. But that's exactly what you deserve for trying to turn a perfectly good statistics thread into yet another name calling contest. As though the PPP board needs less statistics and more namecalling. Does anyone besides Meazza feel brave enough and smart enough to choose between method 1 and method 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Sorry to laugh at the egg on your face, VA Bills. But that's exactly what you deserve for trying to turn a perfectly good statistics thread into yet another name calling contest. As though the PPP board needs less statistics and more namecalling. Does anyone besides Meazza feel brave enough and smart enough to choose between method 1 and method 2? 817197[/snapback] Way to answer. So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 Way to answer. So? 817202[/snapback] So I'd be glad to hear anything you have to say about the statistics question in my initial post. If you like to address me about a different topic, do so in another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 So I'd be glad to hear anything you have to say about the statistics question in my initial post. If you like to address me about a different topic, do so in another thread. 817216[/snapback] Just you and these little experiments along with your prior crap, is very reminesant of oh shall we say either 1940 Germany or Japan, or maybe 1960-70's South Africa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 So I'd be glad to hear anything you have to say about the statistics question in my initial post. If you like to address me about a different topic, do so in another thread. 817216[/snapback] So it's obvious i'm the only one who will answer, am i right or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 I'm going to go with Method 1. It's been a few years since I took statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 You tell me which one you think is right, and I'll tell you why you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 26, 2006 Author Share Posted October 26, 2006 So it's obvious i'm the only one who will answer, am i right or what. 817221[/snapback] Patience. There are a few people I may need to accuse of chickening out of this question. I can't really make that accusation unless I give them a fair chance to answer. In particular, I've accused Ramius of not having the intellectual depth with which to back up his often vitriolic style of posting. In the spirit of fair play, I felt I'd offer him a chance to show that Bungee Jumper was right about him, and that I was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 What does this have to do with 14 year old girls meazza's dated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 What does this have to do with 14 year old girls meazza's dated? 817234[/snapback] they both never happened. it's called correlation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 If he's as good at stats as Bungee Jumper thinks he is, he'll use this chance to prove Bungee Jumper right. But if I'm right about him and Bungee Jumper is wrong, he'll ignore this thread or, at most, post some insult about me without answering the question. 817230[/snapback] And here I was working it out from first principles, which is what was taking so long, and why I posted the flippant comment I did (to mark time, so you knew I'd seen the thread). But if you're going to be a dick about it: you're an idiot. Now I'm not answering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 What does this have to do with 14 year old girls meazza's dated? 817234[/snapback] But she was 98 in dog years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 But she was 98 in dog years... 817243[/snapback] Meazza's into beastiality also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Meazza's into beastiality also. 817245[/snapback] I guess it's true when they say you learn something new everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Meazza's into beastiality also. 817245[/snapback] Nah, just ugly chicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts