/sci/ - Science & Math

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1123705]

/sci/ census results:

n = 255
30 participants excluded for unusable, ambiguous or missing answers.

>Descriptives
64% of the participants were between the ages 18 and 22 (college aged).
85% of the participants were atheist/agnostic.
68% of the participants were single.
70% of the participants completed calculus II or equivalent.
60% of the participants cared about politics.
7% of the participants used a tripcode.

>Significant correlations (at α = .05)
College aged x Calculus II: .165 (p = .008)
College aged x Atheism/Agnosticism: .199 (p = .001)
Single x Atheism/Agnosticism: .155 (p = .013)
Single x Time on 4chan: .139 (p = .026)
And a marginally significant (p = .052) -.122 correlation between using a tripcode and completion of calculus II.

>Discussion
I'm pleased at the survey's success. Receiving 255 responses between three sampling sessions far exceeded my expectations. Thank you to those who gave me data. While I admit that most of this information is largely humdrum and predictable, I feel that most of it's value is in that it could be attained; this gives me hope for future, larger 4chan survey projects.

The most shocking result is the proportion of areligious participants. I figured that /sci/ was rather godless, but I suppose I'd expected the number to be less than 85%. I'm retrospectively displeased with myself for the inclusion of an ambiguous question about political opinions rather than a question about gender, and for this I blame the impromptu conception and administration of the survey. I was also hoping for correlations which had effect sizes larger than .04, but I'm pleased to have extracted what small, if essentially meaningless, relationships I did. I'm also pleased that being single was positively correlated with time spent on 4chan.

Any If there are any questions, concerns or suggestions that arise after this thread's completion, please send them to [e-mail]

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1123729]

My oh my, /sci/ is moving quickly today. This will be my only bump.

[Anonymous No.1123747]

bump

[Anonymous No.1123761]

INTRIGUING.

[Anonymous No.1123769]

I wonder how many are niggers

[Anonymous No.1123775]

interesting

although i'm not sure why you are surprised about the agnosticism/atheism.

frankly i am surprised there are actually theists on here. its like a deaf person browsing /mu/

[Anonymous No.1123776]

I wonder how many are niggers. I'll take a stab and say <1%.

[Anonymous No.1123779]

i approve of this massage

[Anonymous No.1123788]

You should do some data mining with this.

[Anonymous No.1123790]

7% are tripfags? Fucking hell.

Hopefully that figure is skewed by anons not bothering to respond and tripfags being more likely to respond by way of being attention whores.

[Anonymous No.1123796]

>>1123775
>frankly i am surprised there are actually theists on here. its like a deaf person browsing /mu/

that is now my new favourite analogy many internet for you sir

[Anonymous No.1123802]

>>1123705
>. I figured that /sci/ was rather godless, but I suppose I'd expected the number to be less than 85%.

99% of that 15% were fucking trolls

[Anonymous No.1123804]

>Single x Time on 4chan: .139 (p = .026)

dohohoho

[Anonymous No.1123805]

>>1123790
7% is actually pretty low compared to many other boards. one of the good things about /sci/ is lack of tripfags

[Anonymous No.1123813]

OP, take this survey over again. Try more people.

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1123837]

>>1123813
I do not plan on administering this particular survey again, although I DO plan on administering similar surveys and sampling more than three times.

I'd originally planned nine samples over four weeks, but the data did not seem to be changing much from sample to sample as my n got larger. Also, I didn't want to become a meme.

[Anonymous No.1123856]

This is good data OP, and thanks for your work efforts. I'm not familiar with the correlation scale (only had as it comes statistics experience) but I tought correlation meant something greater than 0.5 in slope. Mind explaning this? Also, why are you multiplying the percentages together to get the correlation?

[Anonymous No.1123870]

I'm so fucking sick of the science = atheist argument when it's been proven wrong some many times now...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052801856.html

Do some reading you fucking angsty teenagers

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1123892]

>>1123856
They are Pearson correlations obtained through SPSS 16.0. The later versions (7.0+) permit the extraction of NominalxNominal and NominalxInterval Pearson correlations, as the formulae for those types of correlations are just variation of the pearson product moment.

Correlations run from -1 to +1, with negative correlations meaning that the two variables frequently do not occur together, and positive meaning that they frequently do. The closer the correlation coefficient is to 1, the stronger the correlation.

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1123912]

>>1123892
My mistake, NominalxNominal correlations are obtained using Phi, but pearson spat out the same numbers in each case anyhow.

[Anonymous No.1123921]

>>1123705
oh fukin porn fap fap

[Anonymous No.1123922]

>>1123870
will you fuck off you annoying little shit

[Anonymous No.1123928]

>>1123870

Actually, most of the argument is against theism which is distintict from deism. Deism, at an individual level, is equivalent to closeted pedophillia--it does not affect anyone, but it hits the fan one its out in the public affecting others. A good synthesis of the science should make you re-evalute religious dogma in depth, but in principle it will never say anything against or for a god. However, when you blatantly ignore the science and replace with fanciful preconceptions of how the universe should be then we have a conflict which should not be tolerated, for it will ultimately hinder science.

In summary, yes, some are angsty teens, but from what I gather here in sci, most have had deep consideration of the subject asides from those who retain their faiths on direct contradictory grounds. So just to bring the point home, Deism /= theism.

[Anonymous No.1123947]

>>1123892

Ahhhhhhhr, no idea man. Mind toning it down in baby steps so that an ignorant person like me can understand?

[Anonymous No.1123950]

Glad I did see the results and am also surprised at 85% agnosticism/atheism... I would have pinned /sci/ to be much closer to 100%.
Maybe next time give a range of answers for age as this doesn't tell us where the other 36% of people lie.
Anyway good job.

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1123990]

>>1123947
Well, lets say hypothetically that I administered a survey that had many questions, one of which was about gender and one was about tampon usage. If I found a .89 correlation between tampon usage and being female, it'd mean that those two responses frequently (because |.89| is close to 1) occur together (because the correlation is positive).

On the other hand, lets say I found a -.89 correlation between being male and tampon usage. That would mean that those two responses frequently (because |-.89| is close to 1) did NOT occur together (because the correlation is negative).

[Anonymous No.1124275]

>>1123990

Yes I understand that, but on your thing you said that signficant correlations happen at alpha=0.05, unless that's something different from what you said. Either way thanks for the input OP.

[Anonymous No.1124397]

ITT: Bitches don't know 'bout statistics

[Anonymous No.1124432]

>>1123990
Wouldn't the fact that some males reported tampon usage give you an idea of the accuracy, given that essentially no males use tampons?

[Anonymous No.1124448]

Your effect sizes are so small.

[None !!sxFK8Md7tvu No.1124516]

>>1124448
Yes, indeed they are.

>>1124432
I would question those results also if I were to administer that survey. Some individuals equipped with a vagina identify with the male gender, though, so I'd just shake my fist at the LGBTA.