4 ms·

There's no need for snark. My point still stands. Statistical significance for upper class men vs. upper class women is never mentioned. The statistics in thi

There's no need for snark. My point still stands. Statistical significance for upper class men vs. upper class women is never mentioned. The statistics in this instance are cooked and very misleading. It does not prove the author's point. The major claim in this article is that upper class men did much better than upper class women: > Why did the higher-class man do so much better than the higher-class woman? Yet the statistic only compares upper class men to everyone else. Why did the authors choose to only mention the p-value for one category vs. everyone else? Why not other data slices? The authors clearly calculated the p-value between individual groups (from their "not statistically significant" comment). Why did they not list these values? It's a choice between negligent data analysis or intentional omission.

ximeng 10y ago
It sounds like if you slice the "everyone else" further you're only going to get more significant differences.
MagnumOpus 10y ago
What is your beef? The study's N and the raw evaluation numbers are even stated in the layman's article, you can even calculate statistical significance yourself if you don't trust the author's statements. And they stated that UM is significantly different from the other three, but that LM, UF and LF are not significantly different from each other. What more do you want?
tgb 10y ago
> Why did the authors choose to only mention the p-value for one category vs. everyone else? Why not other data slices? Because that's the only part that I quoted - go read the academic article yourself if you want the full analysis. Let's just do the p-value comparison of upper-class men to upper-class women for you just to settle this. The null-hypothesis is that both categories are equally interviewed. Total of 18 people interview (13 of 80 men, 3 of 79 women). If all null-hypothesis is true, the 16 interviews would be randomly distributed into the men and women categories. The chance of getting at least 13 men would then be sum_(i=13)^16 (16 choose i) * (80/159)^i * (79/159)^(16-i) which equals p = 0.011. So much for malevolent omission!

ximeng 10y ago

It sounds like if you slice the "everyone else" further you're only going to get more significant differences.

MagnumOpus 10y ago

What is your beef? The study's N and the raw evaluation numbers are even stated in the layman's article, you can even calculate statistical significance yourself if you don't trust the author's statements. And they stated that UM is significantly different from the other three, but that LM, UF and LF are not significantly different from each other. What more do you want?

tgb 10y ago

> Why did the authors choose to only mention the p-value for one category vs. everyone else? Why not other data slices? Because that's the only part that I quoted - go read the academic article yourself if you want the full analysis. Let's just do the p-value comparison of upper-class men to upper-class women for you just to settle this. The null-hypothesis is that both categories are equally interviewed. Total of 18 people interview (13 of 80 men, 3 of 79 women). If all null-hypothesis is true, the 16 interviews would be randomly distributed into the men and women categories. The chance of getting at least 13 men would then be sum_(i=13)^16 (16 choose i) * (80/159)^i * (79/159)^(16-i) which equals p = 0.011. So much for malevolent omission!