You just made up the distribution and assumed it's the same on both sides though, and you started all this drawing an existential conclusion from a statistical claim
-
-
Replying to @puellavulnerata @eigenrobot
“and assumed it’s the same on both sides” 1) irrelevant criticism — only one tail is relevant here, 2) assumption of normality is fairly common when true distribution is unknown.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Using normal distributions to guess at what happens in tails is a really bad idea
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
1) No, Nathaniel, it is not as bad as you think it is 2) In the context of speculative twitter pontification it most certainly isn't
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @bechhof and
"2) In the context of speculative twitter pontification it most certainly isn't" Do you ever hear yourself? You just went on a long and condescending rant only to end with that - hilarious
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What is your point?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @salonium and
If my point wasn’t clear to you, it’s this: if I were to defend this in a paper, I would probably lose, because the evidence I brought forth is indeed speculative. On the other hand, I’ve seen way more poorly defended Twitter arguments.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @salonium and
I think it's really fun to play around with potentially (or even probably) bogus ideas on twitter. it should be play though. when it gets argumentative like this, and when you're going into the minutia about which assumptions about a stat model are ok you're not playing anymore.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @salonium and
And I am indeed am not “playing” anymore — making inferences about tails is certainly valid enough TO PROPOSE A GODDAMN HYPOTHESIS, which is what I did. In fact it would be a valid enough reason to publish this hypothesis — but not to validate it (yet).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Locus_of_Ctrl @danlistensto and
There are several levels of inquiry: 1) wild speculative 2) informed hypothetical 3) deductive/empirical (validation) My initial tweet was (1). By explaining my reasoning statistically, I reached (2). I never claimed to be at (3).
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
all I'm really trying to say at this point is "dude, chill, this is just a bull session"
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.