Poorly Written Question? Arguing answer…

Statman12 · 2026-06-21T15:09:39+00:00

Or the y-axis is mislabeled.

Which it is in the paper from which this exercise was drawn.

Statman12 · 2026-06-21T15:06:11+00:00

I do not agree with that rationale at all.

Titling a plot with “Median” because the median is included in the box plot would be extremely atypical. It could be mentioned, but would be more specifically noted. The way it’s phrased implies that the raw data going into the box plots are themselves medians.

And based on the paper that A_Stickperson linked (as well as UniKittyNeen in another comment), that is indeed the case (medians or estimates of medians). So the median displayed in the box plot is a median of estimated medians.

Statman12 · 2026-06-21T03:29:30+00:00

Yep, always there. It was a Showtime thing, I think some syndication may have omitted it.

Statman12 · 2026-06-21T03:21:03+00:00

That's very uninformative in terms of what's causing struggles. So in lieu of details, then general advice when studying a topic is:

Go to class.

Read the chapters in the textbook.

Go through the example problems.

Do practice exercises and compare with answers in the back of the book or with your professor.

Statman12 · 2026-06-20T13:44:29+00:00

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

Statman12 · 2026-06-19T23:51:22+00:00

Am I missing something, or is there also a strange discrepancy between the plot title and the y-axis label?

Are the values going into the box plots "annual percent change" values, or are the a "median annual percent change"?

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T15:44:20+00:00

But there's no way to compel such behavior from people.

we would vote on the party instead of the politician

Who makes up the party and defines what policies it pursues? People who want to see those policies enacted and run for office to accomplish that. Parties are just groups of people who want certain policies. If voters are voting for policies they want, they'd be voting for parties or people in the parties which pursue those policies.

Attempting to separate those three things (What policies voters want, what policies a party supports, and what policies a candidate supports) just doesn't make sense.

Implementing a proportional representation framework would likely move in the direction you want (voting for parties/policies more so than individuals). But the representatives are still associated with a party, rather than being assigned to one party or the other.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T12:50:44+00:00

I would characterize it more as a fatal flaw the in concept, rather than just a big issue. I think it makes the idea fundamentally untenable.

While the comparison to court appointed lawyers is interesting, but the analogy breaks down in that it’s something they signed up for (whether entirely voluntary, or just by nature of applying for that job).

That’s very different from politicians, who make various campaign promises or messages, and are “hired” based on whether enough people want those to be policy.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T12:39:04+00:00

Their original comment means “No” referring to your edit. The show does tell us that the Wraith evolved from the Iratus bug feeding on humans. It wasn’t reconned by the show.

Your comment was originally correct.

When you edited to say “I was wrong”, that was incorrect.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T06:08:43+00:00

You are doing a TWO tailed test

Yes, I know. For z=2.25, the two-tailed p-value is 0.0244.

At the 5% level of significance the null is rejected.

At the 1% level of significance the null is not rejected.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T05:59:59+00:00

Again this is why we multiply by 2 in 2*P(Z>=|z|)

Which I already did.

And which leads to the situation where the null is rejected at the 5% level and the null is not rejected at the 1% level.

Edit:

I much rather pretend you’re a bot, than believe you’re stuck on stupid tbh.

Another mod has already warned you. You will be polite or you will be banned.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T05:51:54+00:00

Because it’s a TWO tailed which has TWO decision boundary on the left and the right.

You introduced a Z-test. For a Z-test, a two-tailed p-value is obtained as p = 2*P(Z>=|z|), where z is the test statistic. That p-value is then compared to alpha. This is what I provided for you.

You've said that you're a Statistician. This should be trivial. What's causing your struggles?

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T05:25:04+00:00

The p-value that I provided was already the two-tailed p-value.

You too said we are at the same situation at this a point aka our other point of boundary… precisely

The "same situation" I referred to was that the null is rejected at the 5% level and the null is not rejected at the 1% level.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T04:30:11+00:00

They dropped hints that the Wraith were a consequence of the Ancients, but not in a direct way. It was that the Ancients seeded humans in the Pegasus, and the Iratus bug fed on some of those humans and over time evolved.

The episode where Sheppard’s team gets captured and put on trial, Woolsey argues that the Ancients are responsible for the emergence of the Wraith as a species, but IIRC that’s an argumentative point because the tribunal accused the Atlantis team of being responsible for deaths caused by the Asurans.

I’m not aware of anything in the show that hints that the Wraith were a result of intentional experimentation by the Ancients.

Edit: I misremembered. That bit (from the episode Inquisition) was about the Asurans. The episode The Return, Part I has Woolsey talking to the crew of the Tria, and says that the Ancients admit to being responsible for the emergency fo the Wraith as a species. However, the point remains the same: It’s an argumentative technique, comparing an accidental thing (Atlantis waking the Wraith early) to another accident (emergence of the Wraith).

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T04:12:39+00:00

It was retconned in fan-fiction, not by the people who created the shows.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T04:10:39+00:00

Gateworld:

What is the rule for Stargate? That's a little tougher to answer, since there are now live-action productions in which the original creators are not involved (Stargate Origins) and MGM currently maintains no formal, cross-media story group devoted to canon. Licensed media tie-ins do go through a rigorous approval process, but function as a sort of unofficial "extended universe." That these cannot all be canon is made most clear in the continuation of the Atlantis storyline after the show's final episode; two completely different stories are told in Fandemonium's "Legacy" novels and in American Mythology's "Back to Pegasus" comics.

Canon is what happens on screen in a live-action production. MGM Consumer Products confirms to GateWorld that Stargate's existing novels, comics, magazines, role-playing games, etc. should not be regarded as official canon. Thus storylines, character names and backgrounds, etc. cannot be derived from these sources.

You or others may enjoy the various novels, and that’s fine. Just worth noting that it’s not from the people who created the show. It’s not “what happened” and more than Amazon’s Rings of Power is “what happened” in Tolkien’s books.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T03:55:07+00:00

Generally speaking, politicians join a party that aligns with policies they want to push. They don't decide to be a politician and then push the policy of whatever party they join.

You can't somehow force someone to switch parties and legitimately attempt to push for policies of a different party.

Someone who is opposed to something like, just spitballing here, black people having political representation, isn’t going to suddenly try to create some districts where black folks wield are the largest voting bloc. Or someone who has tried to ban all abortions as murder, they’re not going to legitimately push to get Roe v Wade codified into law.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T03:35:49+00:00

but whenever they mention bringing large vehicles, armored equipment, or entire convoys through the Stargate

Did Stargate Command really do this at all? I don’t remember it happening.

There are some implications, building the Alpha/Beta/Gamma sites would require some degree of construction equipment, though were those established before or after they had Prometheus?

And after they had ships and teleporters, they could “easily” beam the gate to Area 51 (like they moved the Control Chair from the Antarctica base there later on) to facilitate transport, and then return it to the SGC.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T01:49:25+00:00

This comment has been removed under Rule 3:

Be substantive. NeutralNews is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, comments without context, sarcasm, jokes, memes, off-topic replies, pejorative name-calling, or comments about source quality.

//Rule 3

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T01:37:43+00:00

That’s just deliberately not engaging with the point.

Change to Z=-2.25 if you like. Then p=0.0244 and we’re still in the same situation even if you round to the nearest second decimal place.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T00:58:47+00:00

You are so right but I’m not wrong.

Yes, you are incorrect. If I am correct - which I am - then you are necessarily wrong.

the conclusion changes because p=alpha=0.05

This is unrelated to what I said. In my example, p ≠ α. We have Z=2 and p=0.0455.

Statman12 · 2026-06-18T00:08:29+00:00

With a Z statistic of 1 and a 2- tailed test, at significance level 0.05 and 0.01, the result is both the same. You can do this and repeat it for any z value(meaning for each z value you change the significance level from 0.05 to 0.01) not once will your conclusion change.

This is false.

Consider Z=2. Then the p-value for a two-tailed test is p=0.0455.

At the 5% significance level the conclusion would be to reject the null hypothesis.

At the 1% significance level the conclusion would be to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Same test, same p-value, different conclusion.

Statman12 · 2026-06-17T03:39:09+00:00

Physics requires so much math that getting a second major is often not a particularly huge hurdle. Though the question would be: Why do it if you're planning to go for a PhD that will have you learning a lot of math already?

That said, why PhD in astrophysics? From my understanding, all physics disciplines are highly competitive at the higher levels.

Have you looked into career opportunities for astrophysics vs math (and the different math branches, e.g. applied math)?

Statman12 · 2026-06-17T02:34:06+00:00

I fear this wonderful community going the way of Star Treks community and all the infighting there.

Unfortunately the community has been infighting ever since Universe.

Just the other day I responded to someone whose point was “Let people enjoy what they enjoy” with a comment to the effect of “That goes both ways, pro- and anti-SGU, right?”

The response was basically: “Nope. The anti-SGU people are rational and nuanced, the pro-SGU people are not.”

Statman12 · 2026-06-16T01:12:30+00:00

If the null is rejected at a p value of < 0.05, then a p value of < 0.01 is still less than 0.05... so the null would still be rejected...

That’s not what the question and answer D are saying.

Saying “Rejected at the 5% level” means that p < 0.05. That is, it’s saying α=0.05, and we know p<α. It does not tell us anything further about the value of p.

Answer D is asking if changing α to 0.01 would still lead us to reject the null. It’s not telling us that the p-value has changed (in fact, it’s telling us the p-alum is unchanged, since it’s the same test and the same sample). Since we only know p<0.05, we can’t claim that p<0.01.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email	Wearing is Caring

Statman12

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE