[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug) wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Hi, > > I was sitting through a presentation of some research yesterday about > the results of a pilot study where a control group was compared with a > treatment group and I found that I was rather confused about the use > of the term standard error. The researcher appeared to be saying > something about having too small a standard error was not a good > thing. > > Could someone please explain or link me to a page where I could get > some detailed information about use of the standard error. I think > that it is a measure of the standard deviation of the sample means, > but this doesn't appear to be the context that was used (from my > understanding). It's the standard deviation of a computed statistic, of which the sample mean is only one case. Sometimes when group comparisons are involved, a very small standard error of the mean or other statistic can arouse suspicion. For example, J.P. Rushton published some results involving the distribution of penis size in males of various "racial" groups. They showed that the largest "Asian" penis was smaller than the smallest "caucasian" penis and that the largest "caucasian" penis was smaller than the smallest "negroid" penis. Complete with very small standard errors for each group mean. As it turned out, he obtained those results by having a graduate student go up to men in shopping malls and ask them how big their penises were. Not exactly a solid methodology (Rushton was reprimanded for this, which <sarcasm> was of course because asserting that race determines penis size and that penis size is negatively correlated with intelligence (he actually asserted this) isn't "politically correct" </sarcasm>). . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
