= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Simpson comments on Even if you have a nail, not all hammers are the same - 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 (125)
Wow, I just read Robin's writeup on this and it caused me to significantly lower the amount of credence I place on his other positions (but very slightly lower my opinion of supplements). It just struck me as overwhelmingly sloppy and rhetorical. Particularly his justification attempt in response to this thread. (But I suppose Robin's responses to criticism have never impressed me anyway.)
Is the data easily available anywhere? If it's not, that might explain why no one redid the analysis. If it is, I might be persuaded to try a few different models out.
EDIT: After some digging, I'm pretty sure I know what statistical model they used in the study and should be able to reproduce their results and try a few different things IF I can get the data in a sufficiently nice form.
EDIT2: see my recent post in the discussion section
Why'd you delete it? :-( I was wondering earlier where it went.
I didn't think I understood enough of what they did to comment usefully anymore, and I don't have the time currently (i.e., this week) to put into understanding it. Did you read it after I had put the edit at the end? If so, did you still find it useful?