4 ms·
> don't know what variables were the key drivers of the first groups results so we therefore cannot possibly create a consistent second group to measure against
by prepend 5y ago
> don't know what variables were the key drivers of the first groups results so we therefore cannot possibly create a consistent second group to measure against the baseline.
This is why there are practices around statistics sampling and confidence intervals and whatnot. Of course we can’t exactly recreate, that’s impossible, but we can create samples in a way that the results are generalizable in both the baseline and the comparison. And the results are useful.
I have a friend who says that it’s impossible to know if we can’t sample 100% (“how can we know how it will work in 100 million if we only test in 1000?”) and it’s frustrating how just basic concepts of math and statistics make it hard for them to accept any research.
- impossiblefork 5y agoThere are many ways of knowing the means objectively. In countries with mandatory military service and where IQ tests are administered in connection wit that service there is reliable data. Another source is the number of clinical cases of mild mental retardation. This will mostly depend on how large the population subgroups with lowest IQ are, but if they are approximately fixed and there's no explosion in assortative mating it would be possible to calculate the true mean from that.
- aoeusnth1 5y ago> Another source is the number of clinical cases of mild mental retardation. This assumes both classification criteria and testing rates remain constant over time. Both are poor assumptions.
- impossiblefork 5y agoMaybe, but the first one is certainly a good source.