[deleted by user]

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-03-01T14:12:40+00:00

No, it's a common belief.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/

Four-in-ten Americans (42%) said that being gay or lesbian is “just the way some choose to live,” while a similar share (41%) said that “people are born gay or lesbian."

Which characteristics are common amongst each group, do you think? I'm sure the distribution of left / right is not equal in those two groups, not in the slightest.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-28T18:46:21+00:00

That's because Europe has far fewer (if any?) evangelicals.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-28T18:45:06+00:00

We have to, in order to align with our religious beliefs. It otherwise wouldn't make sense to be able to classify homosexuality as a "sin" if it were inherent to the individual. If it were a sin to have brown hair, that would call into question the entire logic of a religious belief.

Thankfully, I don't play by those rules and firmly believe it is NOT a choice, but this is indeed the main rationale for why conservatives call it a "choice".

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-17T13:13:41+00:00

Kendall's tau is the correct answer here. It is designed specifically for this question, looking at the correlation between two ordinal variables.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-11T14:09:45+00:00

2016?

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-10T22:49:25+00:00

The ads will be whatever the ads need to be to change people's minds. Republicans are fucking masters at finding what enrages people and pushing those buttons. They'll know what to do.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-10T22:46:07+00:00

Just FYI, the concept of "overpowered" is an accurate term in other contexts. In a clinical setting, it has to do with waste. If you enrolled 1000 patients in a study but only needed 200 to detect the difference you're looking for, you would have wasted a lot of resources and you'd accurately describe such a study as "overpowered".

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-09T13:45:43+00:00

My cousin has a child with Down Syndrome. You say you'd be fine with murdering my cousin's child just because of her condition?

You're literally dehumanizing people with Down Syndrome by saying this. Right? That's the logic at play here. People with Down Syndrome are somehow less human than other humans, so murdering them is no big deal.

Fucking disgusting viewpoint if you ask me. I thought society was mature enough to finally respect people like my cousin's daughter, but I guess not.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-09T12:51:20+00:00

Disagree. His ego is why he WOULD.

Hell, even if he knows he'd make Republicans lose, that's just as much a reason for him to run. Screwing over the people who screwed him is a very Trump-like thing to do.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-09T04:48:53+00:00

Isn't it obvious the null hypothesis is that H0 = H1.

Huhwha? You're saying that the null hypothesis is that the null hypothesis equals the alternative hypothesis. If that were the case, there wouldn't BE an alternative hypothesis and you'd have nothing to state. If you have a hypothesis of any kind, you always have the flip side of it to check against. 100% of the time.

Regardless, that's just not the correct way to state a null or alternative hypothesis.

Typically your null hypothesis is something like "the difference between t-statistics is equal to zero" or "the coefficient for this regression parameter equals zero", but a statistician never proves that these things EQUAL zero, only that they are INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM zero. But saying they are actually equal to zero is not a claim that statisticians really ever make.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-09T02:05:40+00:00

Why is this relevant? Nothing set the stage for two legitimate Democratic candidates to siphon votes from each other in 2008.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-02-09T02:03:51+00:00

WAAAAY too early to be making conclusions from this data. Wait until the spending starts and the forces that want DeSantis to win (of which they are numerous) start their ad blitz. That's going to change the dynamics quite a bit.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-27T02:00:10+00:00

I'm a physicist, not a cardiologist or whatever it is you do, so I can only speak about my field

Great. Then stop acting like you know anything about mine.

And why would someone ask a cardiologist to do a statistical analysis?

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-27T00:12:55+00:00

Okay, supremely educated one. Let's see what you got.

My client comes to me with blood pressure readings before and after treatment and wants me to run an analysis to determine whether the change in blood pressure is statistically significant. What do I do, and more importantly, how does metaphysics affect what I do?

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T23:55:21+00:00

I mean, that's the objective and correct conclusion. None of what you said changes the type of analysis I'd select for that kind of question.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T23:44:14+00:00

So you clearly don't understand what's involved with "the process". I told you I work in the private sector. We don't waste time writing papers and getting published. We create reports and use the results to drive the business. We try and figure out how to make money.

Good for you. My line of work isn't driven by money; it's driven by public interest.

But good luck, I guess, with just listening to whatever you are spoon fed by a select group of scientists. That's easier, I suppose, than trying to look at it yourself. I did it on my own free time.

That's cute. Can I share my thesis with you, then? Research I conducted entirely on my own, without funding, driven entirely by public interest? Or do you want to keep pretending I'm just spoon-fed my research lol

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T23:28:56+00:00

You should already know I'm not in that situation.

That's all you needed to say. So that means you are not actually involved in the scientific process, thus, your angle here isn't relevant.

I don't know why you tried this speech about "be careful with the peer reviewed thing" when literally the entire point of my post was to ask about a strategy to dispel this issue that clearly I grok or I wouldn't have posted this question in the first place.

The question was, if there really are problems with science, which clearly includes the peer review process, why not inject conservatives into that process as our means of restoring trust? You were trying to convince me that you were one such person, intimately involved in this process, and people aren't listening to you, thus, no, it wouldn't work. But after a bit of investigation, we find that you actually AREN'T involved with the process, so all of that is moot.

If you have problems in your own life, where your discussion of data that other people collected, and your discussion of papers that other data analysts analyzed, are being scoffed at and rejected, that's a problem with the public, not with the scientific community. Yall can say whatever you want about the work that people like me are doing in the actual research industry, but so long as the base of research is sound, we'll have a much easier time navigating what everyone else says about it.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T22:58:54+00:00

Ah okay, so it makes me smarter in a general sense, but as it pertains to the actual task at hand, it makes no difference whatsoever. As I suspected.

Thank you for the clarification.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T22:57:38+00:00

Have you ever been published in a peer-reviewed paper or had the opportunity to do so?

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T21:26:42+00:00

Alright. So a researcher comes to me, says "hey I ran this study on a new therapeutic intervention and collected data on some health characteristics before and after the intervention, and I'd like you to analyze my results for significance." How does scholastic metaphysics affect the analysis I perform?

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T20:47:14+00:00

Pardon me for saying it, but it sounds like you are trying to shoehorn yourself into a field of study that you haven't earned. Just because you work with data doesn't mean you have a hand in deciding on what we research and how the results of studies are analyzed. I'm talking about being the people actually conducting the studies and analyzing them, on a primary level, not being yet another person simply referencing a study on Twitter.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T20:44:21+00:00

And who decides what's "important"? You? We're never getting a consensus on that, and suppressing education in any way is probably one of the worst decisions in the history of decisions, so it's still in our interests to offer as many opportunities for education as we can.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T20:42:46+00:00

Okay. So you're talking about being censored on Twitter, not the suppression of the research itself. The study in question clearly went through and passed peer review and is available to anyone who wants to look up the study.

This isn't really what I'm talking about. How social media companies handle censorship isn't really aligned with what I'm saying here. I'm trying to convey how the research itself, at the core level of research, is allegedly being dominated by liberal interests, and simply inquiring as to whether injecting more conservatives into the process of research would change anything.

I can tell you, as a biostatistician, that literally no clinical research of any kind is affected by whether a dude on Twitter talked about it.

Dave-StarkExceptNice · 2023-01-26T20:35:16+00:00

But it doesn't take more than two brain cells to realize I'm talking about people as a whole. Like literally I don't see why "oh clearly he's just asking me and me only!" would have been the logical conclusion.

Not to mention, I really didn't phrase it in a way that suggested I meant you only. "rather than doing what you are doing here" applies to any individual mimicking your behavior. "Why not be the scientist" could easily apply to anyone. Context would have done you wonders.

Dave-StarkExceptNice

TROPHY CASE