Talk:1478: P-Values - Revision history

Troy0: Amended my statement.

2016-07-24T06:27:36Z

Amended my statement.

Troy0 at 06:25, 24 July 2016

2016-07-24T06:25:53Z

188.114.99.189: opinion

2015-12-07T21:28:59Z

opinion

141.101.99.84 at 09:15, 18 June 2015

2015-06-18T09:15:54Z

LostAlone at 01:29, 13 April 2015

2015-04-13T01:29:59Z

Davidy22 at 23:35, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T23:35:28Z

Frankie: TL;DR

2015-01-28T16:52:32Z

TL;DR

141.101.104.52 at 13:36, 28 January 2015

2015-01-28T13:36:01Z

S at 01:25, 27 January 2015

2015-01-27T01:25:49Z

108.162.219.163 at 23:06, 26 January 2015

2015-01-26T23:06:45Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ;TL;DR
 As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
-: That is [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-even-scientists-can-easily-explain-p-values/ nearly impossible]. I'm using the American Statistical Association's [http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108#_i27 definition] that "Informally, a p-value is the probability under a specified statistical model that a statistical summary of the data (e.g., the sample mean difference between two compared groups) would be equal to or more extreme than its observed value" until a better one comes.--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 06:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
+: That is [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/not-even-scientists-can-easily-explain-p-values/ nearly impossible]. I'm using the American Statistical Association's [http://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108#_i27 definition] that "Informally, a p-value is the probability under a specified statistical model that a statistical summary of the data (e.g., the sample mean difference between two compared groups) would be equal to or more extreme than its observed value" until a better one comes. That said, the difficulty of explaining p-value is no excuse to use the wrong interpretation of "probability that observed result is due to chance".--[[User:Troy0|Troy0]] ([[User talk:Troy0|talk]]) 06:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 ----
 There's an irony in the use of hair colour as a suspect subgroup analysis... hair colour can factor in to studies.  Ignoring the (probably wrong) common idea that red heads have a lower effectiveness rating for contraceptives, there do seem to be some suggestions that the recessive mutated gene does have implications beyond hair colour.  Getting sunburn easily is one we all know, but how about painkiller and aesthetic efficiency? For example: http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/10/why-surgeons-dread-red-heads/ --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.84|141.101.99.84]] 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ;TL;DR
 As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 ----
 There's an irony in the use of hair colour as a suspect subgroup analysis... hair colour can factor in to studies.  Ignoring the (probably wrong) common idea that red heads have a lower effectiveness rating for contraceptives, there do seem to be some suggestions that the recessive mutated gene does have implications beyond hair colour.  Getting sunburn easily is one we all know, but how about painkiller and aesthetic efficiency? For example: http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/10/why-surgeons-dread-red-heads/ --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.84|141.101.99.84]] 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:28, 7 December 2015
Line 22:		Line 22:

	The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52\|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)		The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52\|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
		+	:Agreed. I first understood it as someone thinking that 0.05 is a "too round" value, and some calculations tend to raise suspicions when these values pop up. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189\|188.114.99.189]] 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

	;TL;DR		;TL;DR

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:15, 18 June 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	;TL;DR		;TL;DR
	As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)		As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	There's an irony in the use of hair colour as a suspect subgroup analysis... hair colour can factor in to studies. Ignoring the (probably wrong) common idea that red heads have a lower effectiveness rating for contraceptives, there do seem to be some suggestions that the recessive mutated gene does have implications beyond hair colour. Getting sunburn easily is one we all know, but how about painkiller and aesthetic efficiency? For example: http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/10/why-surgeons-dread-red-heads/ --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.84\|141.101.99.84]] 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 :I like how you have two separate categories - "scientists" and "researchers" with each having two different goals :) [[User:Nyq|Nyq]] ([[User talk:Nyq|talk]]) 10:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 : As a reporter, I can assure you that journalists are not redoing calculations on studies. Journalists are notorious for their innumeracy; the average reporter can barely figure the tip on her dinner check. Most of us don't know p-values from pea soup.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.78|108.162.216.78]] 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 This one resembles [https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/ this interesting blog post] very much.--[[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.222|141.101.96.222]] 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
-== TL;DR ==
+;TL;DR
 As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 28 January 2015
Line 21:		Line 21:

	The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52\|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)		The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52\|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	== TL;DR ==
		+	As someone who understands p values, IMO this explanation is ''way'' too technical. I really think the intro paragraph should have a short, simplified version that doesn't require any specialized vocabulary words except "p-value" itself. Then talk about controls, null hypothesis, etc, in later paragraphs. - [[User:Frankie\|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie\|talk]]) 16:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 28 January 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html]<br>[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163\|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html]<br>[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163\|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	The "redo calculations" part could just mean "redo calculations with more significant figures" (i.e. to see whether this 0.050 value is actually 0.0498 or 0.0503). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.52\|141.101.104.52]] 13:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:25, 27 January 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:

	See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68\|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68\|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
		+	:I agree. The part about p >= 0.1 reminded me of that comic. [[User:S\|S]] ([[User talk:S\|talk]]) 01:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

	This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html]<br>[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163\|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html]<br>[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163\|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 26 January 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:

	See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68\|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)		See http://xkcd.com/882/ for using a subgroup to improve your p value. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68\|108.162.231.68]] 23:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	This comic may be ridiculing the arbitrariness of the .05 significance cutoff and alluding to the "new statistics" being discussed in psychology.[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2014/march-14/theres-life-beyond-05.html]<br>[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.163\|108.162.219.163]] 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)