Greetings,
Having read most of the discussion so far, I still feel like
asking the same question as Joe Ward did previously. Particularly,
it may be that some countries have chosen not to use their
resources on Olympic sports. Also, there seems to be a potential
flaw in the original analysis: If I'm reading it right, the
analysis was based on countries that won medals. How many
participating countries didn't win any medals and how would their
inclusion influence the results?
On the other hand, in keeping with the topic EDSTAT
(sci.stat.edu), the analysis probably makes a good classroom
example.
Simo V. Virtanen
Finland (almost certain underachiever with 4 medals)
> Joe Ward wrote:
> THEREFORE, FOR ALL CORRELATIONS (ZERO INCLUDED) WE SHOULD EXPECT
> TO CONCLUDE THAT ABOUT ONE-HALF OF ALL CASES
> WOULD BE CALLED "OVER-ACHIEVERS" AND ABOUT ONE-HALF WOULD BE
> CALLED
> "UNDER-ACHIEVERS". DOES THAT DESIGNATION HAVE ANY OPERATIONALLY
> USEFUL MEANING?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
