6 ms·
You seem to think that's somehow wrong. Excluding ouliers some times makes sense. If you're trying to decide whether variable x ptedicts y, it makes sense to re
by oneloop 11y ago
You seem to think that's somehow wrong. Excluding ouliers some times makes sense. If you're trying to decide whether variable x ptedicts y, it makes sense to remove data points where you have strong reasons to believe that other variables stronger than x might be at play.
What was the argument to exclude Japan?
- jessaustin 11y agoNo argument was made. Japan wasn't mentioned. It was something like, "these are the top ten nations measured by quality of life as judged by the international administration of judgmental assholes, and you can see that they all have lower suicide rates than USA." When the exclusion is mentioned, and some reference to other, more decisive factors is made, your point might be valid, although in that case one has to wonder why we're not looking at the more decisive factors instead. It is rarely the case that such caveats are mentioned when trying to dress up political opinions in sociological camouflage. USA is a postcolonial nation of the Americas with a large, diverse population. As such, when considering health or violence it should be compared to other postcolonial nations of the Americas with large, diverse populations, e.g. Mexico or Brazil. It's rare for that to take place. TFA succeeds in that, so it has my compliments.