4 ms·
I might be misunderstanding the article you linked, but it seems very misleading to me (though I agree with the conclusion that the ProPublica article is mislea
by obastani 10y ago
I might be misunderstanding the article you linked, but it seems very misleading to me (though I agree with the conclusion that the ProPublica article is misleading). They claim to conclude:
"The predictor is probably not biased against any particular race - the race_factorAfrican-American:score_factorHigh term is not statistically significant. Or, as ProPublica puts it, it's "almost statistically significant"."
I don't think you can conclude that the predictor is probably not biased against any particular race -- you can only use significance to reject the null hypothesis, not prove the null hypothesis (especially since the significance is still somewhat high). Am I misunderstanding the claim in the article?
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI wrote the article. It's always tricky to me to figure out how to phrase a statement about a frequentist method (since frequentist methods formally say so little). I may have phrased this incorrectly. So what I'm attempting to say is that they ran a statistical test, were unable to reject the null hypothesis, and then wrote an article phrased as if they did exactly that. But I think you are right that my phrasing is incorrectly, however.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago> It's always tricky to me to figure out how to phrase a statement about a frequentist method That seems to me to be a fault whose location is not in your stars.