4 ms·
On a related note, we could take another simple step toward improving the way people communicate about statistics: ban point estimates in news reports. Using a
by hawkharris 12y ago
On a related note, we could take another simple step toward improving the way people communicate about statistics: ban point estimates in news reports. Using a point estimate, I can accurately claim that there's a 50% chance heaven and hell exist. This is technically true because my confidence ranges from 0% to 100%.
I get that people often need so-called "killer facts" — quick statistics that make an impression in press releases — but confidence intervals are more honest and they don't take much longer to communicate. Instead of allowing people to say that "x% of users prefer...", let's say that "x-y% of users prefer."
- yummyfajitas 12y agoI get the point you are making, but confidence intervals are completely the wrong solution. They do NOT mean what you probably think they mean (where "you" is a generalized "you the reader"). http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/inpress/HoekstraEtAlPBR.pdf http://www.ejwagenmakers.com/inpress/HoekstraEtAlPBR.pdf Credible intervals are probably what you want. A lot of the time people misunderstand confidence intervals and treat them like credible intervals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_interval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_interval