/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16057213
statistics be racist, chud

>>16057213
What are some politically correct distributions? Ones without a first moment? Cauchy?

>>16057263
All of the famous distributions are named after dead white Christian men unfortunately, but the Gibbs distribution might do in a pinch and Yule–Simon is named for a jew

We live in niggerkike times now

AI article

>SA in 21st century
lol lmao even

>>16057213
Stats don't lie, only the data/conclusions do.

>>16057213
Except they're actually right, early applications of normal distribution assumed a "morphological average" existed that most humans trend close enough to utilize for any given demographic. It assumed a "rigid" nature was operating in the background.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/when-u-s-air-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages/article_e3231734-e5da-5bf5-9496-a34e52d60bd9.amp.html

>Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions. One pilot might have a longer-than-average arm length, but a shorter-than-average leg length. Another pilot might have a big chest but small hips. Even more astonishing, Daniels discovered that if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions. Daniels’s findings were clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you’ve designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you’ve actually designed it to fit no one.

Same shit happened with BMI.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215

>Body Mass Index’ biggest flaw is that it does not take into account the person’s body fat versus muscle (lean tissue) content.
>Muscle weighs more than fat (it is denser, a cubic inch of muscle weighs more than a cubic inch of fat). Therefore, BMI will inevitably class muscly, athletic people as fatter than they really are.
>A 6ft-tall Olympic 100 meter sprinter weighing 90kg (200lbs) may have the same BMI (26) as a couch potato of the same height and weight.
>A BMI calculation would class both of them as overweight.
>That calculation is probably right for the sedentary couch potato, but not for the athlete.

Statistics works because it's measuring the probabilistic outcomes of a given subject. But it doesn't tell you the final form of that outcome in conjunction with real world interactions.

>>16057814
her necklace is an anagram for "gibzie"

I love how pro-science cultists are still in full fucking denial over the existence of biology

>>16058267
>These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 per cent of the range of values for each dimension. So, for example, even though the precise average height from the data was five foot nine, he defined the height of the “average pilot” as ranging from five-seven to five-11.
Wow not one of 4063 pilots simultaneously fits into ten 30% confidence intervals? SHOCKING

>>16058267
Yeah and the average woman has 1.6 kids. I feel a little bad for the .6 kid

Reminder that the average human has one testicle.

>>16057213
Implicitly, the normal distribution is based on pre-determined or (to be determined) probabilities of events. We can take height, for example, which more or less looks like it obeys normal distribution patterns. From a purely mathematical point of view, there is a default height with events that will increase or decrease your height by some small amount. The more events there are, the more closely the distribution pattern will fit the normal distribution curve.

However, the idea that there is a default height with events that will concordingly make you larger or smaller is in some way just stupid because it assumes a single event to occur multiple times unchanged in all people.

>>16058595
Fredrick Brennan

>>16058609
The average human is dust. Dust doesn't have testes.

>>16057213
i mean he's not wrong, but he's writing it in a way that non-technical people can understand. The whole inferior/superior thing feels poorly phrased.

>>16058623
>the normal distribution
Gaussian

>>16057213
they were hired for political affiliation not statitistical or scientific competency

>>16059203
But he is. The purpose of a normal distribution isn't to establish a model of default human behavior, it is to establish a model of the default presentation of a specific factor, so that you can determine the probability that any given variation is due to a normal or special cause.
There is no moral statement of superiority about that. When someone makes an argument in a paper that "X has a statistically significant impact on Y" they are making a causal statement that implicitly assumes a number of things. The most important of those is that the control and experimental groups have similar baseline behavior, absent the influence of X, and therefore that Y must be the thing causing the variation in behavior. If you eliminate a practice of identifying this baseline level because you find it offensive, you have functionally made it impossible to perform any kind of statistical analysis, because you are no longer generating accurate baselines between experimental and control groups.

In essence, what the author is saying is the statistical equivalent of someone who criticizes a study by saying, no matter the P value, that the results must be a coincidence. He is fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the statements he is criticizing in a way that undermines the foundation of the discipline he is trying to contribute to, by making it impossible to draw valid conclusions.

>>16060539
what happened to the people with statitistical or scientific competency?

>>16061822
they were all white so they had to go

>>16061837
>The West will no longer be able to measure the competency crisis.
Poetry.

>>16061837
>WASHINGTON (TND)

>>16062501

>>16057213
they're not a real publication, they're just another propaganda outlet

>>16064703
Just like Nature

>>16065791
I don't like Biden but I also don't like Trump. Who should I vote for then?

>>16065828
Jill Stein

>>16065832
>(((Stein)))
No, thanks.

>>16057215
>statistics be racist,

Data is racist...

>>16065887

Always remember when POC do poorly in school, blame the lousy School system.

>>16065892
What if that school system is also run by shitskins?

>>16067042
Blame whites for having higher IQs
>evolution be raysis an sheiiittt

>>16065828
Twum

>>16057213
>Scientific American citing PBS as a source
and PBS cited Scientific American as their source
its all a big popsoi circlejerk

>>16070092
>the washington post says its true because the new york times says its true because npr says its true because cnn says its true because the bbc says its true because because they saw it in the washington post

>>16064703
>Janet
A foid
>(((Stemwedel)))
Need I say more?

Everyone knows who the default human is.
I hate this universe.
You fuckers made up these rules and now these rules are shit and never meant anything anyway.
fml

>>16058489
>the existence of biology
Theory* of Biology.

Until you define how carbon is unalive in a rock and bristling with wrath in me then you have no "existence" to even prove...just a notion of want.

>>16059203
>i mean he's not wrong, but he's writing it in a way that non-technical people can understand.
He's dead wrong and probably because he's trying to dumb it down. The normal distribution doesn't assume anything like that which is why there's both a mean and a variance.

>>16058267
>>Body Mass Index’ biggest flaw is that it does not take into account the person’s body fat versus muscle (lean tissue) content.
Yup, one really can't tell if you and your mobility scooter block an aisle because you're fat or because you're an Olympic athlete.

>>16072869
bodyfat percentages

>>16057213
Just average mutt things.

>>16061837

>>16073410
that means its working
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jyPwh4Xaaihj/