3 ms·
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhDMqe8boEYMgBp7QhkWK8wXjnxgvKZ5DQNbSj7QtDtyV-y4P4UBLZ6o-7pQJIZAX-Obc7CVqaPdw8/pubhtml https://docs.google.com/
by sjburt 4y ago
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhDMqe8boEYMgBp7QhkWK8wXjnxgvKZ5DQNbSj7QtDtyV-y4P4UBLZ6o-7pQJIZAX-Obc7CVqaPdw8/pubhtml https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRhDMqe8boEY...
I don't see any correlation at all.
- pfdietz 4y agoThe data don't lie on a line, but at least they lie on a plane.
- rossdavidh 4y agoThanks! I agree. The R-squared of these numbers is 0.11, which is much closer to 0 (no relation) than to 1 (perfect correlation).
- oneoff786 4y agoThat’s a very misleading framing though. An R-Squared if 0.11 would be pretty damn important if rigorously demonstrated. This is not rigorous though.
- KMag 4y agoOptical regression score: "All over the place worse than my darts game after a few pints of gin" Though, often a rank vs. rank scatter plot is more enlightening than a scatter plot of the raw data.