5 ms·
I'm an engineer and if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance and they won't use the
by vsskanth 6y ago
I'm an engineer and if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance and they won't use the model to make decisions.
Assuming the R2 here is indeed correct how do you use this to make real life hiring or admission decisions ? Just weight it at 35% ? What do you do for the other 65% then ?
- api 6y agoSocial sciences are called “soft” for a reason.
- vsskanth 6y agoWhy (asking seriously). I am not doubting the validity of the correlation. I just want to know how one can use this info properly.
- api 6y agoI was simply agreeing with the parent that the standard for evidence in the social sciences is a lot weaker than would be acceptable in physics, chemistry, etc.
- free_rms 6y agoNecessarily weaker, though. You can't break out an electron microscope and numerically confirm observations about emergent outcomes from a billion individuals with their own psychologies. Either we allow for "softer" observations/experiments or we throw up our hands and give up.
- ploika 6y agoWhat do you mean by worse than random? R-squared is a measure of variance explained, not binary prediction accuracy.
- whimsicalism 6y ago> if I present any model with an R2 of 0.35 it would be flat out rejected because it would be worse than random chance If I was interviewing an engineer that said something like this, I wouldn't hire them. It's somewhat unclear what you even think "random chance" means in a regression context.
- username90 6y ago> R2 of 0.35 it would be would be worse than random chance Any model with non-zero R2 is better than random guessing.