3 ms·

I didn't intend to make a statistically rigorous statement or anything, I just thought your anecdote was a funny application of Berkson's paradox. The fun part

I didn't intend to make a statistically rigorous statement or anything, I just thought your anecdote was a funny application of Berkson's paradox. The fun part is that I don't need to know how smart or clean you are, or how cool the companies you work for are. As long as you subjectively perceive people to be cleaner/messier than you, or smarter/dumber than you, Berkson's paradox will still hold no matter what your objective, absolute levels of those traits are. For example, it's perfectly possible that the programmers you consider to be dumb but clean or smart but messy are still both smarter and cleaner than me. Berkson's paradox applies to me too, after all, and we don't hang out together.

ninetyninenine 3y ago
What if the sample of the people I hang out with are a completely accurate representation of the entire domain? Would the paradox still apply?
- saint_fiasco 3y ago
  When it comes to smart/clean, maybe you can hang out with enough people to get an accurate sample. But then you would find other paradoxes, like maybe you'd find that the smart/clean programmers you meet have a worse personality or are less athletic than the dumb/messy ones. The only way for it to not apply at all, for every possible trait, is if you hang out with the entire planet at the same time.
  - ninetyninenine 3y ago
    Wouldn't personality and athleticism be off topic though? I'm only referring to two traits here: intelligence and code sloppiness. Does this paradox still apply in this case? Or is this paradox some kind of broad thing not relegated to a specific correlation?
    - fragmede 3y ago
      They're off topic, but the point is you'll find correlation where you want to.
      - ninetyninenine 3y ago
        Possible. But also possible that no bias influenced my observation. And who's to say that the correlation I happen to want isn't real?
        fragmede 3y ago
        I am. I mean, it could be you're right. everyone's entitled to their own opinions though. some people think the moon is made of cheese, for example. but the reality is the inherent bias in your sample set is too large to be ignored.
        ninetyninenine 3y ago
        My claim from a common sense perspective isn't outlandish as saying the moon is made of cheese. Biased samples don't automatically invalidate every aspect of the sample as a description of the reality. The possibility remains that every most programmers have two eyes just as smarter programmers tend to write sloppier code. Look the general thing here is that anecdotal information is not automatically invalid. Your type of argument just goes around dismissing all forms of anecdotal data as if it's completely false. It's like you cannot even get up from bed and put your feet on the floor because there's no science saying that the floor exists.
        fragmede 3y ago
        The plural of anecdote is not data! Looking around at the people surrounding you, you could also easily conclude that everyone has the same skin tone. If you've only ever lived in, say, Scotland, you could erroneously conclude that, on top of everyone having two eyes, every one is also white. It's not until you look past the fact that you're in Scotland biases your dataset to being exclusively white people, that you see there are other kinds of people out there. Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes.

ninetyninenine 3y ago

What if the sample of the people I hang out with are a completely accurate representation of the entire domain? Would the paradox still apply?

saint_fiasco 3y ago
When it comes to smart/clean, maybe you can hang out with enough people to get an accurate sample. But then you would find other paradoxes, like maybe you'd find that the smart/clean programmers you meet have a worse personality or are less athletic than the dumb/messy ones. The only way for it to not apply at all, for every possible trait, is if you hang out with the entire planet at the same time.
- ninetyninenine 3y ago
  Wouldn't personality and athleticism be off topic though? I'm only referring to two traits here: intelligence and code sloppiness. Does this paradox still apply in this case? Or is this paradox some kind of broad thing not relegated to a specific correlation?
  - fragmede 3y ago
    They're off topic, but the point is you'll find correlation where you want to.
    - ninetyninenine 3y ago
      Possible. But also possible that no bias influenced my observation. And who's to say that the correlation I happen to want isn't real?
      - fragmede 3y ago
        I am. I mean, it could be you're right. everyone's entitled to their own opinions though. some people think the moon is made of cheese, for example. but the reality is the inherent bias in your sample set is too large to be ignored.
        ninetyninenine 3y ago
        My claim from a common sense perspective isn't outlandish as saying the moon is made of cheese. Biased samples don't automatically invalidate every aspect of the sample as a description of the reality. The possibility remains that every most programmers have two eyes just as smarter programmers tend to write sloppier code. Look the general thing here is that anecdotal information is not automatically invalid. Your type of argument just goes around dismissing all forms of anecdotal data as if it's completely false. It's like you cannot even get up from bed and put your feet on the floor because there's no science saying that the floor exists.
        fragmede 3y ago
        The plural of anecdote is not data! Looking around at the people surrounding you, you could also easily conclude that everyone has the same skin tone. If you've only ever lived in, say, Scotland, you could erroneously conclude that, on top of everyone having two eyes, every one is also white. It's not until you look past the fact that you're in Scotland biases your dataset to being exclusively white people, that you see there are other kinds of people out there. Living in Scotland and sampling your data there, concludes that all humans are white, along with having two eyes.