Editing 2560: Confounding Variables

Jump to: navigation, search

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 19: Line 19:
 
In the final panel, Miss Lenhart suggests a sweet spot in the middle, where both confounding variables and your control impact the end result, thus making you "doubly wrong". "Doubly wrong" result would simultaneously display wrong correlations (not enough of controlled variables) and be too narrow to be useful (too many controlled variables), thus the 'worst of both worlds'.
 
In the final panel, Miss Lenhart suggests a sweet spot in the middle, where both confounding variables and your control impact the end result, thus making you "doubly wrong". "Doubly wrong" result would simultaneously display wrong correlations (not enough of controlled variables) and be too narrow to be useful (too many controlled variables), thus the 'worst of both worlds'.
  
βˆ’
Finally she admits that no matter what you do the results will be misleading, so statistics are useless. This would seem to be an unexpected declaration from someone supposedly trying to actually teach statistics{{Citation needed}}, and expecting her students to continue the course. Though there is a possibility that she is not there to purely educate this subject, but is instead running a course with a different purpose and it just happens that this week concluded with this particular targeted critique.
+
Finally she admits that no matter what you do the results will be misleading, so statistics are useless. This would seem to be an unexpected declaration from someone supposedly trying to actually teach statistics{{Citation needed}}, and expecting her students to continue the course. Though there is a possibility that she is not there to purely educate this subject, but is instead running a course with a {{w|MythBusters|different type of remit}} and it just happens that this week concluded with this particular targeted critique.
  
 
In the title text, the ''residual'' refers to the difference between any particular data point and the graph that's supposed to describe the overall relationship. The collection of all residuals is used to determine how well the line fits the data. If you control for this by including a variable that perfectly matches the discrepancies between the predicted and actual outcomes, you would have a perfectly-fitting model:  however, it is nigh impossible (especially in the social and behavioral sciences) to find a "final variable" that perfectly provides all the "missing pieces" of the prediction model.
 
In the title text, the ''residual'' refers to the difference between any particular data point and the graph that's supposed to describe the overall relationship. The collection of all residuals is used to determine how well the line fits the data. If you control for this by including a variable that perfectly matches the discrepancies between the predicted and actual outcomes, you would have a perfectly-fitting model:  however, it is nigh impossible (especially in the social and behavioral sciences) to find a "final variable" that perfectly provides all the "missing pieces" of the prediction model.

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)