Women in science need to learn more about how statistics work.
If I published results this low in significance as tho they were real I could have 'proved' eighty different insane things by now.
To explain why this is bad:
If I published results this low in significance as tho they were real I could have 'proved' eighty different insane things by now.
To explain why this is bad:
https://twitter.com/EmilyKhazan/status/1323292996062842883
Her sample size is low. There's calculations you can do to figure out exactly how meaningful a result (basically, what's the probability it was an "accidental" positive) is based on the sample size and the correlation strength.
It's irresponsible to publish results as significant
It's irresponsible to publish results as significant
if there's too high a probability that your correlation was just random chance. If you test a lot of things for long enough, you're absolutely gonna find lots of correlations that are just random chance!
This means you have to be extra careful if you're checking a ton of these.
This means you have to be extra careful if you're checking a ton of these.
But also it's extra terrible that this author reported a meaningful result when she admits it's not statistically significant! I'm physically recoiling from this idea. How are they training people in school that this is something they think is ok?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
