3 ms·

> This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever yo

> This is essentially what p-hacking is. By organizing variables in a certain way, you can create statistically significant results to say basically whatever you want them to say. Do you know what statistically significant results means?

somenameforme 2y ago
Yes, and it doesn't mean "true" as you might think. There's a great demo of p-hacking here. [1] It's based on real data too, which makes it extra fun. Your goal is to prove that one party or another being in power leads to a stronger economy. That statement is almost certainly false as you can quickly see by how awkward it is to "prove" it. But you'll find when you arrange your variables in certain ways you can indeed find statistically significant evidence to "prove" literally whatever you want. But again the one tell-tale sign somebody like me would notice from your study is 'why in the world would you limit it to that sample'? Well because that sample gives you the answer you want! It's science, baby! [1] - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  This is a survey. There is nothing under test. Its like saying you are p-hacking an election. I don't understand what you mean.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    This is the entire point of our dialogue. You claimed my statement that most people [who don't have children] claim they aren't having children because of economic reasons was false. Your evidence was a study that showed a negligible majority of people [who actively don't plan to ever have kids, age 18-49] are simply doings so out of personal choice, and then seemed confused about why this was an inappropriate sampling for what we are actually testing, so to speak. It'd be akin to if I claimed (as I do) that the party in office has no meaningful effect on the economy, and you responded 'Uh, yeah they do! Democrats have a majorly positive effect on the economy. Look at this study!' [President only, employment only, excluding recessions]. That survey you linked to is not just presenting the survey. It's presenting a rather specific and odd subsampling.
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      I didn't claim anything. I was just asking where you heard what you heard. I provided a survey that showed a different response. You weren't happy with the population it sampled from. You thought the buckets should be sized differently. You called this p-hacking. I provided another survey from a larger population with a similar response to the first one I shared. You didn't acknowledge it. You still haven't provided a source.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        Their sample was fine, but them subsampling it to present clickbait misinformation is not. Here [1] for instance are some interesting broad picture datums. General planned fertility hasn't changed much at all over the years, but rather people are simply failing to achieve their goals. The percent of people with the intent to remain childless (100% of the sample in the studies you linked to) remains relatively negligible, rarely more than ~15% per age bucket, and generally much lower. So those views are quite unrepresentative and fringe. The relationship between economics and fertility is widely accepted, but surveys have been hijacked by clickbait. Going the other direction with studies is also difficult because it's well established and taken as a given, rather than studied. But this [2] seems to be some older foundational study on the topic. ctrl+f for "opportunity cost." Essentially the more people earn, the more they lose out by having children, which is seen as a major deterrent to having children. In other words, they don't see themselves as having enough money to afford what they would lose by having children, so prioritize earning more, to buy more things, over having children. [1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12535 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12535 [2] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576563/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576563/

somenameforme 2y ago

Yes, and it doesn't mean "true" as you might think. There's a great demo of p-hacking here. [1] It's based on real data too, which makes it extra fun. Your goal is to prove that one party or another being in power leads to a stronger economy. That statement is almost certainly false as you can quickly see by how awkward it is to "prove" it. But you'll find when you arrange your variables in certain ways you can indeed find statistically significant evidence to "prove" literally whatever you want. But again the one tell-tale sign somebody like me would notice from your study is 'why in the world would you limit it to that sample'? Well because that sample gives you the answer you want! It's science, baby! [1] - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/

someothherguyy 2y ago
This is a survey. There is nothing under test. Its like saying you are p-hacking an election. I don't understand what you mean.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  This is the entire point of our dialogue. You claimed my statement that most people [who don't have children] claim they aren't having children because of economic reasons was false. Your evidence was a study that showed a negligible majority of people [who actively don't plan to ever have kids, age 18-49] are simply doings so out of personal choice, and then seemed confused about why this was an inappropriate sampling for what we are actually testing, so to speak. It'd be akin to if I claimed (as I do) that the party in office has no meaningful effect on the economy, and you responded 'Uh, yeah they do! Democrats have a majorly positive effect on the economy. Look at this study!' [President only, employment only, excluding recessions]. That survey you linked to is not just presenting the survey. It's presenting a rather specific and odd subsampling.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    I didn't claim anything. I was just asking where you heard what you heard. I provided a survey that showed a different response. You weren't happy with the population it sampled from. You thought the buckets should be sized differently. You called this p-hacking. I provided another survey from a larger population with a similar response to the first one I shared. You didn't acknowledge it. You still haven't provided a source.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Their sample was fine, but them subsampling it to present clickbait misinformation is not. Here [1] for instance are some interesting broad picture datums. General planned fertility hasn't changed much at all over the years, but rather people are simply failing to achieve their goals. The percent of people with the intent to remain childless (100% of the sample in the studies you linked to) remains relatively negligible, rarely more than ~15% per age bucket, and generally much lower. So those views are quite unrepresentative and fringe. The relationship between economics and fertility is widely accepted, but surveys have been hijacked by clickbait. Going the other direction with studies is also difficult because it's well established and taken as a given, rather than studied. But this [2] seems to be some older foundational study on the topic. ctrl+f for "opportunity cost." Essentially the more people earn, the more they lose out by having children, which is seen as a major deterrent to having children. In other words, they don't see themselves as having enough money to afford what they would lose by having children, so prioritize earning more, to buy more things, over having children. [1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12535 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padr.12535 [2] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576563/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576563/