Things that have no place in REAL science

[Anonymous No.8523167]

>p-values

[Anonymous No.8523169]

>women

[Anonymous No.8523170]

>>8523169
seconded.

[Anonymous No.8523172]

>>8523169
amen, don't need any of that.

[Anonymous No.8523173]

>>8523169

>tfw 50% of the population has an IQ below 100.

[Anonymous No.8523174]

>>8523167

yeah thats why they stick to bio, psychology and make up

[Anonymous No.8523177]

>>8523173

>tfw 50% of the population has an IQ below 100.

das rasis

[Anonymous No.8523182]

>>8523177

sexist you mean. Lol i know for a fact, australia doesnt have a shit iq.

[Anonymous No.8523184]

>>8523169
women not intelligent enough to do science so i agree, no place.

[Anonymous No.8523206]

>>8523167

>women

[Anonymous No.8523211]

>>8523167
>REAL science

Sophomoric

[Anonymous No.8523223]

>>8523182

>australia doesnt have a shit iq

You haven't spent enough time on boards with flags

[Anonymous No.8523225]

>>8523223
u should direct me?

[Anonymous No.8523226]

>>8523167

who would you choose, tim hunt or women?

[Anonymous No.8523233]

>>8523167
>Bayesian priors

[Anonymous No.8523235]

p-values are actually of value in the physical sciences b/c the underlying distribution is more likely known.

In the social sciences they are almost always bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8523240]

>>8523235

so how are they supposed to do their hypothesis testing.

also what about >>8523233

[Anonymous No.8523243]

>>8523240

The point is that they shouldn't be doing it period. The results they obtain are not statistically valid.
What they are doing is called scientism it is a cancer.

[Anonymous No.8523248]

>>8523243
why is this? i hear about it but dont know anything about it.

[Anonymous No.8523255]

>>8523248
You have to assume an underlying distribution when you calculate a p-value

[Anonymous No.8523259]

DARK:
>energy
>matter
>thrust
>photons
>anal cavities

[Anonymous No.8523262]

>>8523167
>>8523167
>>8523167
what the fuck p values are on my final tomorrow and I still haven't learned them yet

i've learned a lot about the rao blackwell theorem though

[Anonymous No.8523265]

>>8523255

oh fair enough. wjat else would people do though.

[Anonymous No.8523277]

>>8523265
That's the million dollar question. The point is that p-values and frequentist statistics more generally were invented to address specific situations where the underlying distribution could be known to a reasonable degree of certainty. If social scientists want their field to have the same level of respectability that the hard sciences currently enjoy, the way to do that is to invent new techniques appropriate for their field of study, not to mindlessly copy the technical language of a more respectable field.

[Anonymous No.8523285]

>>8523277
well social scientists and psychologists usually don't know shit about statistics so i guess its fucked. what about bayesian testing.

[Anonymous No.8523306]

>>8523285
I don't see how it addresses the concerns in my previous post.

[Anonymous No.8523319]

Imaginary numbers.

[Anonymous No.8523321]

>>8523255
>>8523265
>assume an underlying distribution
underlying distribution of what? The results? central limit theorem?

[Anonymous No.8523328]

>>8523321
of the data-generating process

[Anonymous No.8523330]

Paradoxes, any of them.

[Anonymous No.8523339]

>>8523321

central limit theorem doesn't actually represent the distribution of the population necessarily though does it? and sample sizes too small?

[Anonymous No.8523342]

>>8523306

what about guessing. just "this number bigger this"

[Anonymous No.8523357]

>>8523328
>>8523339
so the results then
you don't have to assume anything about the underlying distribution and depending on the number of variables you have to control for, it could remain unknown for all you care. The point of statistics is that for enough tests, the results will converge to a normal distribution and this belief has a firm mathematical basis. What you're studying may or may not follow a standard distribution, but your guesses will. That is why statistics work.

[Anonymous No.8523419]

>>8523357
Social "Scientist" detected lol

full retard

[Anonymous No.8523452]

>>8523357
No

the central limit theorem implies that the distribution of the (suitably normalized) population mean is asymptotically normal, but gives no information about other statistics

for example, suppose you flip a coin repeatedly and are interested in the first time you get a heads. The central limit theorem says nothing about the distribution of this, even in the limit of many tosses.

[Anonymous No.8523459]

>>8523182
That image actually shows the average IQ of the native populations of the respective countries. So, yes the average IQ of an abo is ~60, but they're barely human.

[Anonymous No.8523485]

>>8523169
>female """psychologists"""

[Anonymous No.8523514]

>>8523452
What's your point? you're not saying anything new here. Again, no one doing statistics assumes the underlying distribution is a normal one. In fact, it's a safer bet to say most things you'll study won't have a normal distribution. The point, again, is that it doesn't matter because "guessing" follows a normal distribution.
>The central limit theorem says nothing about the distribution of this
what are you talking about It couldn't express more clearly that the probability of being right given you guess heads on a certain toss number would follow that of a normal distribution after normalization. I feel like you don't even understand the points you're making.

[Anonymous No.8523571]

>>8523514
Actually, I feel like you're the one who doesn't understand the points I'm making.

>no one doing statistics assumes the underlying distribution is a normal one

In fact, many common statistical tests are based on this assumption, for example the student's t-test.

>what are you talking about

the clt describes the asymptotic distribution of
[math] (\sum_{i=1}^n X_i)/\sqrt{n} [/math] where X_i are centered iid random variables.

The statistic I gave is of the form [math] \inf \{n: X_n=H\} [/math]. I would be very interested to see how the distribution of this could be inferred from the clt.

> the probability of being right given you guess heads on a certain toss number

this is not the same as the probability of the given toss being the first head thus far

[Anonymous No.8523618]

>>8523571
>I would be very interested to see how the distribution of this could be inferred from the clt
this is exactly why i'm saying I don't think you understand the points you're making. Yet again, I never said you could infer any distribution from anything. I said twice that it doesn't matter. This feels similar to an XY problem. What is the point of making this point? how do you think this invalidates the use of p-values.
>this is not the same as the probability of the given toss being the first head thus far
Sorry, I tried to rephrase your question in a way that makes sense. If I interpreted it the way i think you're literally saying it, it feels like gambler's fallacy tier stuff which statistics obviously can't answer.

[Anonymous No.8523630]

>>8523618
> Yet again, I never said you could infer any distribution from anything. I said twice that it doesn't matter...how do you think this invalidates the use of p-values

because the underlying distribution appears in the definition of a p-value. so you can't calculate a p-value unless you know (or assume) the underlying distribution

>gambler's fallacy tier stuff which statistics obviously can't answer

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's a well-defined random variable with a known distribution.

[Anonymous No.8524032]

>>8523319
imaginary numbers are a surprisingly useful way of representing the phase of a wave

>>8523330
finding a paradox is one of the easiest ways to discredit a flawed theory

[Anonymous No.8524041]

>>8523182
Account for the natives who ooga booga no fire

[Anonymous No.8524043]

>>8523225
>>>/sp/
>>>/pol/
>>>/int/

[Anonymous No.8524044]

>>8523167
Mathematics.

>>8523259
This.

[Anonymous No.8524068]

>>8523167
>egos

[Anonymous No.8524072]

>>8523167
> not understanding basic statistics
sounds like a shit scientist mate