Things that have no place in REAL science

>REAL science

Sophomoric

>australia doesnt have a shit iq

You haven't spent enough time on boards with flags

u should direct me?

who would you choose, tim hunt or women?

>Bayesian priors

p-values are actually of value in the physical sciences b/c the underlying distribution is more likely known.

In the social sciences they are almost always bullshit.

so how are they supposed to do their hypothesis testing.

also what about

The point is that they shouldn't be doing it period. The results they obtain are not statistically valid.
What they are doing is called scientism it is a cancer.

why is this? i hear about it but dont know anything about it.

You have to assume an underlying distribution when you calculate a p-value

DARK:
>energy
>matter
>thrust
>photons
>anal cavities

what the fuck p values are on my final tomorrow and I still haven't learned them yet

i've learned a lot about the rao blackwell theorem though

oh fair enough. wjat else would people do though.

That's the million dollar question. The point is that p-values and frequentist statistics more generally were invented to address specific situations where the underlying distribution could be known to a reasonable degree of certainty. If social scientists want their field to have the same level of respectability that the hard sciences currently enjoy, the way to do that is to invent new techniques appropriate for their field of study, not to mindlessly copy the technical language of a more respectable field.

well social scientists and psychologists usually don't know shit about statistics so i guess its fucked. what about bayesian testing.

I don't see how it addresses the concerns in my previous post.

Imaginary numbers.

>assume an underlying distribution
underlying distribution of what? The results? central limit theorem?

of the data-generating process

Paradoxes, any of them.

central limit theorem doesn't actually represent the distribution of the population necessarily though does it? and sample sizes too small?

what about guessing. just "this number bigger this"

so the results then
you don't have to assume anything about the underlying distribution and depending on the number of variables you have to control for, it could remain unknown for all you care. The point of statistics is that for enough tests, the results will converge to a normal distribution and this belief has a firm mathematical basis. What you're studying may or may not follow a standard distribution, but your guesses will. That is why statistics work.

Social "Scientist" detected lol

full retard

No

the central limit theorem implies that the distribution of the (suitably normalized) population mean is asymptotically normal, but gives no information about other statistics

for example, suppose you flip a coin repeatedly and are interested in the first time you get a heads. The central limit theorem says nothing about the distribution of this, even in the limit of many tosses.

That image actually shows the average IQ of the native populations of the respective countries. So, yes the average IQ of an abo is ~60, but they're barely human.

>female """psychologists"""

What's your point? you're not saying anything new here. Again, no one doing statistics assumes the underlying distribution is a normal one. In fact, it's a safer bet to say most things you'll study won't have a normal distribution. The point, again, is that it doesn't matter because "guessing" follows a normal distribution.
>The central limit theorem says nothing about the distribution of this
what are you talking about It couldn't express more clearly that the probability of being right given you guess heads on a certain toss number would follow that of a normal distribution after normalization. I feel like you don't even understand the points you're making.

Actually, I feel like you're the one who doesn't understand the points I'm making.

>no one doing statistics assumes the underlying distribution is a normal one

In fact, many common statistical tests are based on this assumption, for example the student's t-test.

>what are you talking about

the clt describes the asymptotic distribution of
[math] (\sum_{i=1}^n X_i)/\sqrt{n} [/math] where X_i are centered iid random variables.

The statistic I gave is of the form [math] \inf \{n: X_n=H\} [/math]. I would be very interested to see how the distribution of this could be inferred from the clt.

> the probability of being right given you guess heads on a certain toss number

this is not the same as the probability of the given toss being the first head thus far

>I would be very interested to see how the distribution of this could be inferred from the clt
this is exactly why i'm saying I don't think you understand the points you're making. Yet again, I never said you could infer any distribution from anything. I said twice that it doesn't matter. This feels similar to an XY problem. What is the point of making this point? how do you think this invalidates the use of p-values.
>this is not the same as the probability of the given toss being the first head thus far
Sorry, I tried to rephrase your question in a way that makes sense. If I interpreted it the way i think you're literally saying it, it feels like gambler's fallacy tier stuff which statistics obviously can't answer.

> Yet again, I never said you could infer any distribution from anything. I said twice that it doesn't matter...how do you think this invalidates the use of p-values

because the underlying distribution appears in the definition of a p-value. so you can't calculate a p-value unless you know (or assume) the underlying distribution

>gambler's fallacy tier stuff which statistics obviously can't answer

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. It's a well-defined random variable with a known distribution.

imaginary numbers are a surprisingly useful way of representing the phase of a wave

finding a paradox is one of the easiest ways to discredit a flawed theory

Account for the natives who ooga booga no fire

...

Mathematics.

This.

>egos

> not understanding basic statistics
sounds like a shit scientist mate