🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 23:43:20 UTC No. 16057213
The writers at Scientific American have no idea how statistics work
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Mar 2024 23:44:30 UTC No. 16057215
>>16057213
statistics be racist, chud
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:20:40 UTC No. 16057263
>>16057213
What are some politically correct distributions? Ones without a first moment? Cauchy?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 07:47:42 UTC No. 16057814
>>16057263
All of the famous distributions are named after dead white Christian men unfortunately, but the Gibbs distribution might do in a pinch and Yule–Simon is named for a jew
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 07:51:10 UTC No. 16057822
We live in niggerkike times now
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 08:07:16 UTC No. 16057845
AI article
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:02:47 UTC No. 16058176
>SA in 21st century
lol lmao even
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 15:07:50 UTC No. 16058181
>>16057213
Stats don't lie, only the data/conclusions do.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:07:30 UTC No. 16058267
>>16057213
Except they're actually right, early applications of normal distribution assumed a "morphological average" existed that most humans trend close enough to utilize for any given demographic. It assumed a "rigid" nature was operating in the background.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh
>Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions. One pilot might have a longer-than-average arm length, but a shorter-than-average leg length. Another pilot might have a big chest but small hips. Even more astonishing, Daniels discovered that if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions. Daniels’s findings were clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you’ve designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you’ve actually designed it to fit no one.
Same shit happened with BMI.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/ar
>Body Mass Index’ biggest flaw is that it does not take into account the person’s body fat versus muscle (lean tissue) content.
>Muscle weighs more than fat (it is denser, a cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat). Therefore, BMI will inevitably class muscly, athletic people as fatter than they really are.
>A 6ft-tall Olympic 100 meter sprinter weighing 90kg (200lbs) may have the same BMI (26) as a couch potato of the same height and weight.
>A BMI calculation would class both of them as overweight.
>That calculation is probably right for the sedentary couch potato, but not for the athlete.
Statistics works because it's measuring the probabilistic outcomes of a given subject. But it doesn't tell you the final form of that outcome in conjunction with real world interactions.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 16:38:59 UTC No. 16058292
>>16057814
her necklace is an anagram for "gibzie"
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 18:28:23 UTC No. 16058489
I love how pro-science cultists are still in full fucking denial over the existence of biology
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:07:01 UTC No. 16058576
>>16058267
>These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 per cent of the range of values for each dimension. So, for example, even though the precise average height from the data was five foot nine, he defined the height of the “average pilot” as ranging from five-seven to five-11.
Wow not one of 4063 pilots simultaneously fits into ten 30% confidence intervals? SHOCKING
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:17:52 UTC No. 16058595
>>16058267
Yeah and the average woman has 1.6 kids. I feel a little bad for the .6 kid
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:22:11 UTC No. 16058609
Reminder that the average human has one testicle.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:28:28 UTC No. 16058623
>>16057213
Implicitly, the normal distribution is based on pre-determined or (to be determined) probabilities of events. We can take height, for example, which more or less looks like it obeys normal distribution patterns. From a purely mathematical point of view, there is a default height with events that will increase or decrease your height by some small amount. The more events there are, the more closely the distribution pattern will fit the normal distribution curve.
However, the idea that there is a default height with events that will concordingly make you larger or smaller is in some way just stupid because it assumes a single event to occur multiple times unchanged in all people.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:45:54 UTC No. 16058766
>>16058595
Fredrick Brennan
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:52:33 UTC No. 16058773
>>16058609
The average human is dust. Dust doesn't have testes.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 03:40:12 UTC No. 16059203
>>16057213
i mean he's not wrong, but he's writing it in a way that non-technical people can understand. The whole inferior/superior thing feels poorly phrased.
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 23:15:08 UTC No. 16060508
>>16058623
>the normal distribution
Gaussian
Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 23:32:43 UTC No. 16060539
>>16057213
they were hired for political affiliation not statitistical or scientific competency
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 02:22:21 UTC No. 16060752
>>16059203
But he is. The purpose of a normal distribution isn't to establish a model of default human behavior, it is to establish a model of the default presentation of a specific factor, so that you can determine the probability that any given variation is due to a normal or special cause.
There is no moral statement of superiority about that. When someone makes an argument in a paper that "X has a statistically significant impact on Y" they are making a causal statement that implicitly assumes a number of things. The most important of those is that the control and experimental groups have similar baseline behavior, absent the influence of X, and therefore that Y must be the thing causing the variation in behavior. If you eliminate a practice of identifying this baseline level because you find it offensive, you have functionally made it impossible to perform any kind of statistical analysis, because you are no longer generating accurate baselines between experimental and control groups.
In essence, what the author is saying is the statistical equivalent of someone who criticizes a study by saying, no matter the P value, that the results must be a coincidence. He is fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the statements he is criticizing in a way that undermines the foundation of the discipline he is trying to contribute to, by making it impossible to draw valid conclusions.
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:14:25 UTC No. 16061822
>>16060539
what happened to the people with statitistical or scientific competency?
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:23:20 UTC No. 16061837
>>16061822
they were all white so they had to go
Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 22:10:01 UTC No. 16061906
>>16061837
>The West will no longer be able to measure the competency crisis.
Poetry.
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 07:51:08 UTC No. 16062501
>>16061837
>WASHINGTON (TND)
Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 23:15:27 UTC No. 16063785
Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 09:08:37 UTC No. 16064703
>>16057213
they're not a real publication, they're just another propaganda outlet
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 00:36:40 UTC No. 16065791
>>16064703
Just like Nature
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:11:52 UTC No. 16065828
>>16065791
I don't like Biden but I also don't like Trump. Who should I vote for then?
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:14:44 UTC No. 16065832
>>16065828
Jill Stein
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 01:17:59 UTC No. 16065833
>>16065832
>(((Stein)))
No, thanks.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:14:49 UTC No. 16065887
>>16057215
>statistics be racist,
Data is racist...
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 02:17:02 UTC No. 16065892
>>16065887
Always remember when POC do poorly in school, blame the lousy School system.
Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 21:17:50 UTC No. 16067042
>>16065892
What if that school system is also run by shitskins?
Anonymous at Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:16:01 UTC No. 16068425
>>16067042
Blame whites for having higher IQs
>evolution be raysis an sheiiittt
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 05:03:42 UTC No. 16069551
>>16065828
Twum
Anonymous at Tue, 12 Mar 2024 14:16:27 UTC No. 16070092
>>16057213
>Scientific American citing PBS as a source
and PBS cited Scientific American as their source
its all a big popsoi circlejerk
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:40:51 UTC No. 16071297
>>16070092
>the washington post says its true because the new york times says its true because npr says its true because cnn says its true because the bbc says its true because because they saw it in the washington post
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 02:46:32 UTC No. 16071311
>>16064703
>Janet
A foid
>(((Stemwedel)))
Need I say more?
Cult of Passion at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 03:00:42 UTC No. 16071333
>>16058489
>the existence of biology
Theory* of Biology.
Until you define how carbon is unalive in a rock and bristling with wrath in me then you have no "existence" to even prove...just a notion of want.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:19:59 UTC No. 16071990
>>16059203
>i mean he's not wrong, but he's writing it in a way that non-technical people can understand.
He's dead wrong and probably because he's trying to dumb it down. The normal distribution doesn't assume anything like that which is why there's both a mean and a variance.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:05:16 UTC No. 16072869
>>16058267
>>Body Mass Index’ biggest flaw is that it does not take into account the person’s body fat versus muscle (lean tissue) content.
Yup, one really can't tell if you and your mobility scooter block an aisle because you're fat or because you're an Olympic athlete.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:24:19 UTC No. 16073403
>>16072869
bodyfat percentages
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:28:44 UTC No. 16073408
>>16057213
Just average mutt things.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:29:28 UTC No. 16073410
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 04:02:48 UTC No. 16073439
>>16073410
that means its working
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jyPw