@piffer_davide @KirkegaardEmil Beat me to it.
-
-
Replying to @Mangan150
@Mangan150 @piffer_davide It would be fairly easy to examine the effect size of zodiac sign for each of the 2600 or so other variables.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
@KirkegaardEmil@Mangan150 @piffer_davide lol you should1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RCAFDM
@KirkegaardEmil@Mangan150 @piffer_davide of course if you find some statistically significant result with 1% some idiot will jump on it :P1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RCAFDM
@RCAFDM@Mangan150 @piffer_davide In fact, Virgo has p=.07 for cognitive ability with beta of -.04. Call the press! ;)2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
@RCAFDM What effect size should I use for categorical ~ categorical models? Chi. Sq. does not give one, only p value.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
@KirkegaardEmil hmmm idk, maybe hazard ratio or something akin to that?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RCAFDM
@RCAFDM@KirkegaardEmil What's the absolute strongest relationship seen?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidshor
@davidshor@RCAFDM I can't tell until someone gives me a way to calculate effect sizes.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KirkegaardEmil
@KirkegaardEmil@davidshor well what sort of categorical vs categorical are we talking about here?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@RCAFDM @davidshor I sent you the data, have a look. Zodiac item is "d_astrology_sign", sort out the "-" people first.
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.