🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:26:59 UTC No. 16451163
Why do statisticians carry out their results and report them to decimal place precision when they have 3% margins of error?
Isn't that being intentionally misleading on their part?
They also don't even report what their standards for error measurement is when they report 3%, everyone probably presumes them mean one SD, but they don't say that anywhere and they could be going by any other criteria such as FWHM, 50%, etc. so that makes their quoted margin of error completely meaningless or at least intentionally confusing.
Nobody who does this kind of thing should be allow to call themselves a statistician.
Stop guessing start learning at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:39:50 UTC No. 16451182
>>16451163
The parameters of the calculations are arbitrary.
Sometimes a sample size can no way possibly give a definite outcome.
It's always to small usually.
Observation is always a subjective. How can you conclude something that people subjectivly have different interpretations of.
Statistical theory is a bunch of bs when used outside of numbers and physics.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:41:15 UTC No. 16451184
>>16451182
Statistical signal processing and stochastic control theory are pretty strong as well.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:17:56 UTC No. 16452429
>>16451163
academics and their brethren are extremely narcissistic people. bragging and boasting is their favorite pastime, so of course they lie and exaggerate their intellectual capabilities, their whole personalities are based upon doing so
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:06:31 UTC No. 16452779
>>16452429
They'd lie about their height if they thought they could get away with it. Intelligence in intangible so its easier to claim to be extraordinarily smart than extraordinarily tall. Anyone can claim to be a genius, just look at the fraction of posters on /sci/ who rank themselves as being smarter than average, its pretty much everyone. How is it possible for everyone to be of above average intelligence? They don't think about that because they're too low IQ to have self awareness. Its only a tiny minority of the people here who realize that half of /sci/ is below 100 IQ
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:09:41 UTC No. 16453158
>>16451163
At least they're doing something about it with a recent bill...
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:04:47 UTC No. 16453181
>>16451163
>coping with statistics when historically the inherent anti-Trump bias is double the margin of error anyway
Polls have way bigger accuracy issues than margins of error. To deal with the fact that getting a truly random sample of people is totally unrealistic there are craploads of arbitrary judgment calls needed to 'weight' the data that you do have into something that you think represents the general population.