here's a different view. At by the way, there is in fact a partial version on Google Books; it just doesnt come back in the first page of results for whatever reason. Call me spoiled ;)
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/what-charles-murray-gets-right/ On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > that's pretty interesting. And no, it's not on Google books, but I read > the NY Times review. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/charles-murray-examines-the-white-working-class-in-coming-apart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Maybe? I'd have to look at it to know whether I could. Is this something >> that's on google books? NM I'll look myself. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Forgot to mention the really difficult part is correctly figuring out the >>> range of those results. A good well controlled study will have a very >>> narrow range. A study that has problems with reliability, sample size, >>> etc, >>> will have a very wide range. Another way to look at it is if the range of >>> differences encompasses 0 by any substantial amount, most likely it means >>> that the differences are not meaningful. >>> >>> Speaking of such, I'm prepping a statistical criticism of the latest book >>> byCharles Murray, author of the Bell Curve. Want to join in? >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my >>> notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and >>> counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical >>> power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect >>> sizes. Makes me wish at times I stayed with single case designs. >>> > >>> > 10 word or less that is really difficult. Can I go for 30? >>> > >>> > But you've essentially got the idea. I left out a lot, range estimation >>> and correction for error andthat sort of thing, but yes. >>> > >>> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you >>> are >>> >> right, I think but what Maureen and I said is an .... ok 10 words or >>> less >>> >> version. >>> >> >>> >> In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else >>> right, >>> >> these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%. >>> >> >>> >> I realize that's it's not a given that the 1% is random or that it >>> won't >>> >> occur the next time you repeat the experiment, but I think that is a >>> rather >>> >> fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between >>> >> Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I >>> don't >>> >> have that right then fine, tell me, but if you're going to crank up >>> your >>> >> statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one >>> out >>> >> thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not >>> understand at >>> >> ALL. >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons < >>> [email protected] >>> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at >>> >>> statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance >>> is as >>> >>> follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a >>> >>> significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you >>> replicated >>> >>> the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would >>> fall >>> very >>> >>> close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that >>> >>> spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other >>> factors. >>> >>> It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a >>> smaller >>> >>> sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical >>> >>> significance. >>> >>> >>> >>> So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small >>> samples. It >>> >>> all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too >>> burned >>> out >>> >>> to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty >>> good >>> >>> explanation of it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, LRS Scout <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > The sampling of 90 people is really really small. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any >>> basis at >>> >>> >> all for the crap you've been talking. >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and >>> beat >>> >>> >> > you with experience >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > . >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, >>> 90 >>> >>> people >>> >>> >> > >> and 28 people. >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's >>> -- >>> I'd >>> >>> >> call >>> >>> >> > it >>> >>> >> > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same >>> >>> >> hypothesis. >>> >>> >> > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same >>> drug >>> >>> are a >>> >>> >> > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's >>> >>> methodology. >>> >>> >> > And, >>> >>> >> > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with >>> them >>> >>> may >>> >>> >> > have >>> >>> >>> >> > > >>> with >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346970 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
