= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Psy-Kosh comments on Case study: abuse of frequentist statistics - 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 (96)
Okay, I think that makes sense. Let me put it into my own words:
The test is guaranteed to be not statistically significant merely by virtue of cutting up the outcome space into pieces, each of which has at least 5% chance of happening. And further, because the null hypothesis has been (arbitrarily) defined to be "the two methods are the same", statistical insignificance means a favorable result.
Does that about cover it? If so, that's pretty bad.
Wait... actually it may even be worse than that. I'm not even sure it's cleanly partitioning the outcome space. 1/20 = .05, so if some outcomes are above .05, then other outcomes would have to be below .05, right?
So the calculation to get the final result doesn't even really do a proper partitioning of the outcomes if some of the outcomes can be greater than .05 and none less than .05
EDIT: so yeah, it's cutting up not just the outcome space into pieces corresponding to rankings, but mushing some of those together (at best).