3 ms·
It doesn't seem clear that these results are even statistically significant. As there are no calculated errors associated with the final values (which there sh
by aschwa32 13y ago
It doesn't seem clear that these results are even statistically significant. As there are no calculated errors associated with the final values (which there should be for any study involving numbers) and the first sample is about 1/10th the size of the second. It doesn't seem like you can even draw the conclusion that there are more psychopaths proportionally within the founder group, let alone establish a causal relationship.
TL;DR
Study does not really say anything statistically meaningful.
- latj 13y agoThis is exactly what I logged in to write. For a website called statwing.com there is a lack of statistics in this article. At the top is the disclaimer: "this is not a scientific study". Then they present their data and bring up some new questions based on their findings and link to their stats tool. The problem is: their are no conclusions to be drawn from this, no new questions that arise, no discussion we can have- its the back of a cereal box. If they do a little more work and show that they have found something meaningful- then we'll talk.
- glaugh 13y agoOur bad. Should have put some p-values in the text itself. All those differences are statistically significant, typically at <0.001 levels. All the statistical output, including confidence intervals, is available via clicking through the links to the dataset itself, available here: https://www.statwing.com/open/datasets/88ed02bd6dda2f813ba98d5e01a6f239d7a5359c#workspaces/3859 https://www.statwing.com/open/datasets/88ed02bd6dda2f813ba98... Edit: We added a couple notes about this in the blog post, thanks for the feedback.