Jump to content

The subject of statistics


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 296
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But she was 98 in dog years...

817243[/snapback]

 

 

You're the only one who got my post.

 

We, should all be pedophiles. If it hadn't been for Islam, there wouldn't be Pedophiles like meazza. That's what America deserves, pedophiles. meazza, should be President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the only one who got my post.

 

We, should all be pedophiles.  If it hadn't been for Islam, there wouldn't be Pedophiles like meazza. That's what America deserves, pedophiles. meazza, should be President.

817279[/snapback]

 

You seem to think people care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :doh:

817241[/snapback]

Chicken! :huh:

 

On a more serious note, I guess my earlier post came out the wrong way. I probably shouldn't have said anything beyond the fact that I'll take my hat off to whichever people get the question right.

 

So post an answer or not, as you please. But I'd at least encourage you to work the problem out for yourself. Once you clearly see which answer is the right one, and why, it's a really good feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

817135[/snapback]

 

(Now I know what they're teaching at Keane this semester.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither.

 

You look at the Uninterested group’s response to the snack question, and throw out the Interested responses. The Interested responses are biased, as they would have joined regardless of the snacks, as evidenced by their interest without the bribe (based on the wording of the question no snacks were offered). You want to see whether the presence of snacks would have had any influence on the Uninterested respondents. Your null hypothesis is that there is no influence, and any significant change from that would give you your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...