when i was an escort, there was a slight (r=0.2) negative correlation (p=0.1) between the likelihood that I had an orgasm and the physical attractiveness of my client.
-
-
Research scientists throw those numbers in for fun and then misinterpret them—I only blindly trust statisticians. I commented on it because the inclusion of the p-value didn’t apply to the context.
-
I wasn't sure where to put the p value in that sentence, and figured it didn't matter too much cause ppl who know what p value means wouldn't misinterpret it.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
People probably get the impression you’re not very familiar with this stuff because e.g no ones calls corr. coefficient “r value”
-
I do that plenty. And I refer to r-squared and adjusted r-squared exactly like that. It was the context of effect size and correlation with the inclusion of a hypothesis testing result that caught my attention.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It honestly is weird, like when the guy yesterday (on your post about conventions re: cutoff points for magnitudes of correlation coefficient) tried to explain that you need to look at p-values rather than r values...? I've honestly not seen stuff like this before.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He did mansplain it a little but you had a confusing typo sooo.... justified? But, yeah, you clearly get it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think it's wrong to correct someone who did actually make a mistake.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.