Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Eilan ([info]eilan) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2005-10-01 18:02:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Bayes Law wank
Mini-wank in [info]debate.

[info]raving_wolf posts about random drug testing using statistics that to people not familiar with statistics may seem wrong, but are correct. Bayes Law is not something most people can grasp very easily, so people complain loudly.

Dear people of the world,

testing postitive when something really is negative does not have the same probability as testing negative when something really is positive.

Thanks,
Rebecca

Oh, and it also made it into a [info]_scientists_ thread.


(Post a new comment)


[info]innermuppet
2005-10-01 04:42 pm UTC (link)
I never expected to see Bayes Theorem wank on here. Oh the joys of transposing the conditional...

(Reply to this)


[info]angelhunter
2005-10-01 05:08 pm UTC (link)
ugh... egghead wank is so unamusing!

I have a headache now. *grumbles*

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]annabelle_lee
2005-10-02 04:14 am UTC (link)
Same here. Doesn't help that I just tried to have a debate about racism with my mother that ended in her acting like a defensive asshole. [headdesks]

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]somnambulicious
2005-10-01 05:20 pm UTC (link)
Ooh, stats wank! This certainly makes up for all the stupid wanks where wankers spew out just as much bad statistics as they do spooge.

Dear people of the world,

In statistics, if the answer seems obvious, it probably isn't correct.

Thanks,
Som

(Reply to this)


[info]renata_hpjc
2005-10-01 05:30 pm UTC (link)
I don't belong to that community, but I had to leave an appreciative comment to the OP. It sucks when policy makers's (and the general public's) suckitude at math can have such directly negative effects on innocent people's lives.

(Reply to this)


[info]moonjaguar
2005-10-01 06:16 pm UTC (link)
So many blahblahblah words that said very little. I couldn't figure out from the OP's OP if the OP was for or against random drug testing and I had no idea what random Asians had to do with it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]khym_chanur
2005-10-03 04:05 am UTC (link)
A lower percentage of Asians use cocaine than whites, at least in the United States. Thus, the ratio of false-positives versus true-positives for a cocaine drug test will be higher among Asians than whites.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]quantify
2005-10-01 11:07 pm UTC (link)
This is priceless:

Don't use statistics in this community. Or at least don't explain them. Not just because people are too stupid to understand the explanation, but because they don't *know* they're too stupid to understand the explanation.

Take out the word statistics and substitute virtually anything else and you have an LJ motto to live by. *snerk*

(Reply to this)


[info]miss_padfoot
2005-10-02 06:52 am UTC (link)
This is why every high-school student should be required to read some book about common-sense math. Something by John Allen Paulos would do well.

(Reply to this)


[info]amasaglajax
2005-10-02 09:34 am UTC (link)
Math D: It has germs.

(Reply to this)


[info]plazmah
2005-10-02 04:08 pm UTC (link)
Ooooh, stats wank! Never thought I'd see the day. Makes me want to bust out some t-tests.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map