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.
27
12
205
Conversation
Replying to
Was r=0.2 or r=-0.2? The sign of r determines directionality. The p-value has nothing* to do with the strength or direction of the result, just the likelihood it’s a true result.
1
15
Replying to
It was -.2, I forgot to include negative sign.
I also know how r and p values work, I'm starting to get offended when ppl try to explain them to me for the millionth time. Like do you think I just threw those numbers in there for fun?
Replying to
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.
1
4
Replying to
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.
3
5
Show replies
People probably get the impression you’re not very familiar with this stuff because e.g no ones calls corr. coefficient “r value”
1
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.
1
I don't think it's wrong to correct someone who did actually make a mistake.