Perplexed comments on Science Journalism and How To Present Probabilities [Link] - Less Wrong

7 [deleted] 14 March 2011 06:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (6)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: janos 14 March 2011 07:15:58PM *  3 points [-]

Nope: the odds ratio was (.847/(1-.847))/(.906/(1-.906)), which is indeed 57.5%, which could be rounded to 60%. If the starting probability was, say, 1%, rather than 90.6%, then translating the odds ratio statement to "60% as likely" would be legitimate, and approximately correct; probably the journalist learned to interpret odds ratios via examples like that. But when the probabilities are close to 1, it's more correct to say that the women/blacks were 60% more likely to not be referred.

Comment author: Perplexed 15 March 2011 05:22:08AM 2 points [-]

it's more correct to say that the women/blacks were 60% more likely to not be referred.

Hmmm. I would have said that white men were 60% as likely to not be referred. (This is the first time I've seen the golden ratio show up in a discussion of probability!)

Comment author: janos 15 March 2011 07:41:45PM *  0 points [-]

I prefer your phrasing.