3 ms·
No. Any data exhibits random patterns, especially if you try too hard. If you check for 10 patterns, each at the 95% significance level (p<0.05), there's a 40%
by simsla 8y ago
No. Any data exhibits random patterns, especially if you try too hard.
If you check for 10 patterns, each at the 95% significance level (p<0.05), there's a 40% chance of getting at least one false positive. Look for 20 patterns and that goes up to 60%.
That's why science requires you to formulate a hypothesis before running the experiment. And why finding a pattern through data analysis does not warrant a witch hunt.
- slg 8y agoI don't know what to tell you. It isn't my opinion. It is the law. [1] You can't just saw "No." and be done with it. It also isn't about setting up a witch hunt. It is about protecting people from discriminatory practices even when the discrimination is neither overt or even intentional. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
- adwn 8y agosimsla is giving a reason why that's a bad law – they're not disagreeing that this law exists. A law can have been well-intentioned by legislators yet get abused in practice.
- heavenlyblue 8y agoAnd here you're forgetting about the significance of the patterns themselves. 95% significance of the fact that no women or ex convicts were hired for the job? Seems significant enough that a newspaper would write about it. 95% significance of not hiring a guy who looking too much of a hipster and has too many tattoos? Not sure, to be honest - I can see how society (and newspaper writers) would easily dismiss that as bs. Don't try to abstract it away as otherwise it just seems you're justifying something absolutely ridiculous.