Editing 2001: Clickbait-Corrected p-Value
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Furthermore, this factor may be interpreted as normalisation for the inherent {{w|selection bias}} where the p-values for more clickbaity H<sub>1</sub>s tend to be lower than they should be and p-values for non-clickbaity H<sub>0</sub>s to be higher than they should be. For example, one explanation could be that for p-values that are on the cusp of significance, researchers may be more incentivized to fudge and adjust the data to get the p-value down if the H<sub>1</sub> is highly sensational, since the H<sub>1</sub> would make the research more likely to get published and attract attention. (See also [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/ FiveThirtyEight's article on p-hacking] and [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/200745/how-much-do-we-know-about-p-hacking-in-the-wild/200752#200752 this Stack Exchange question about p-hacking in the wild].) P-hacking has also previously already been [https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 associated] with chocolate and media sensationalism. | Furthermore, this factor may be interpreted as normalisation for the inherent {{w|selection bias}} where the p-values for more clickbaity H<sub>1</sub>s tend to be lower than they should be and p-values for non-clickbaity H<sub>0</sub>s to be higher than they should be. For example, one explanation could be that for p-values that are on the cusp of significance, researchers may be more incentivized to fudge and adjust the data to get the p-value down if the H<sub>1</sub> is highly sensational, since the H<sub>1</sub> would make the research more likely to get published and attract attention. (See also [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/ FiveThirtyEight's article on p-hacking] and [https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/200745/how-much-do-we-know-about-p-hacking-in-the-wild/200752#200752 this Stack Exchange question about p-hacking in the wild].) P-hacking has also previously already been [https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800 associated] with chocolate and media sensationalism. | ||
− | As the statistical results now depend on people's beliefs about the hypothesis, this could appear as far from actual science as one can get. However, in a way, it is more in tune with a quote by {{w|John Arbuthnot}} (one of the originators of the use of p-values) attributing variation to active thought rather than chance, "from whence it follows, that it is Art, not Chance, that governs." | + | As the statistical results now depend on people's beliefs about the hypothesis, this could appear as far from actual science as one can get. However, in a way, it is more in tune with a quote by {{w|John Arbuthnot}} (one of the originators of the use of p-values) attributing variation to active thought rather than chance, "from whence it follows, that it is Art, not Chance, that governs." Munroe applying that quote to the thoughts of the masses brings it in line with "Art". |
− | If this correction could be somehow enforced on the scientific world, it would have the effect of keeping the popular view of scientific results more in line with reality. Often one study will be performed that shows an exciting result, and consequently be sensationalised by the media prior to further studies to verify it. This is in part due to the conflicting interest of the scientific community and the media. The clickbait correction may aid a reader in exercising caution when interpreting sensationalist scientific discoveries in news media. Additionally, there can be a problem in some areas of science where more mundane results never undergo the third-party replication studies (see {{w|replication crisis}} | + | If this correction could be somehow enforced on the scientific world, it would have the effect of keeping the popular view of scientific results more in line with reality. Often one study will be performed that shows an exciting result, and consequently be sensationalised by the media prior to further studies to verify it. This is in part due to the conflicting interest of the scientific community and the media. The clickbait correction may aid a reader in exercising caution when interpreting sensationalist scientific discoveries in news media. Additionally, there can be a problem in some areas of science where more mundane results never undergo the third-party replication studies (see {{w|replication crisis}}, or perhaps are even never studied in the first place. The clickbait correction factor has the opposite effect on these more mundane topics, making it easier to demonstrate effects within them with a lower statistical barrier for entry, perhaps in the hope that more will get studied, published, and exposed to the public. |
[[1475: Technically|Technically]], the comic's depiction of null and alternative hypotheses is not entirely correct. As the alternative hypothesis (H<sub>1</sub>) predicts that chocolate will ''improve performance'' (i.e., a one-tailed, directional hypothesis), the null hypothesis (H<sub>0</sub>) should predict that chocolate will do nothing ''or'' make performance worse. In other words, the alternative hypothesis should be true if and only if the null hypothesis is false. For example, alternatively, if the H<sub>1</sub> were to say that ''chocolate will change performance'' (for better or worse; i.e., a two-tailed hypothesis) then H<sub>0</sub> should say that ''chocolate will do nothing''. | [[1475: Technically|Technically]], the comic's depiction of null and alternative hypotheses is not entirely correct. As the alternative hypothesis (H<sub>1</sub>) predicts that chocolate will ''improve performance'' (i.e., a one-tailed, directional hypothesis), the null hypothesis (H<sub>0</sub>) should predict that chocolate will do nothing ''or'' make performance worse. In other words, the alternative hypothesis should be true if and only if the null hypothesis is false. For example, alternatively, if the H<sub>1</sub> were to say that ''chocolate will change performance'' (for better or worse; i.e., a two-tailed hypothesis) then H<sub>0</sub> should say that ''chocolate will do nothing''. | ||
− | The title text refers to {{w|Bayesian statistics}} | + | The title text refers to {{w|Bayesian statistics}} in which the probability is related to a degree of belief in an event and the {{w|Prior probability|prior probability}}, or simply just prior, expresses this belief before an event has happened. An election forecast is a simple example to this. And here it's suggested using an alternative "clickbayes factor" (a pun and {{w|portmanteau}} of clickbait and Bayesian) to approximate hard to quantify priors. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
− | :[Under a heading that says Clickbait-Corrected p-Value there is a | + | :[Under a heading that says Clickbait-Corrected p-Value there is a mathematic formula. Below that is the description of the two used variables and what they mean:] |
:Clickbait-corrected p-value: | :Clickbait-corrected p-value: | ||
Line 46: | Line 42: | ||
[[Category:Portmanteau]] | [[Category:Portmanteau]] | ||
[[Category:Puns]] | [[Category:Puns]] | ||
− |