Hey Statistics experts, I cannot think of the name for it but what would be the inverse of "survivor bias"? As in, it's not "you think the poison isn't deadly because you only see survivors" but "you think the fertilizer works because you don't see the dead plants".
-
Show this thread
-
Or actually, more like "you think the fertilizer works because you only see the tall plants". As in, all the plants are surviving, but you only see the tallest plants and assume the fertilizer is working, rather than seeing all the normal height plants to see it's not working.
6 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Replying to @zedshaw
Sounds like a form of Confirmation Bias. You expect the fertilizer to help plants grow, so you over-value plants that have grown tall in observations.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ThatMightBePaul @zedshaw
Could also be a form of Simpson's Paradox, where the way you aggregate samples can cause important differences to disappear.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think confirmation bias might be the closest. Honestly, you could say it's simply survivor bias where you've just raised the bar for what being "dead" means. Dead in this case is "plants below 2'" and alive is "plants above 3'".
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.