= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on Sociosexual Orientation Inventory, or failing to perform basic sanity checks - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (41)
Differences in question one are not only implausible, they're impossible.
If such extreme female outliers really existed, at least some surveys would show number of partners for women being massively higher than for men, just by including one such person by chance. There's no statistical way around it, unless you postulate 1 in 100,000 female outliers with millions of distinct male partners each, what's quite ridiculous.
And we have pretty good evidence that women lie anyway.
The survey methodology could systematically fail to include outliers. That is the prostitute theory of the discrepancy, not just that there are female outliers, but that there is a reason that they aren't sampled. "There's no statistical way around it" if the samples are not biased.