Clobberific,those Iowahawkanisms, and a beautiful example of "Simpson's Paradox"...not that the Pepean Thuggees would have a pig's chance in a tiger cage of wrapping their "Logik" around that simple notion. REGURGE, because Iowahawk does.
Simpson's paradox is really cool. My AP Statistics students at first didn't believe it, but now they keep offering fresh examples they come across. This one here is fckng superb.
At least it gives hope for parodoxical statisticians.. Heck, now you have me going on a "do famous statisticians live longer than famous mathematicians?" riff. Graunt, Fisher, Pearson, Bernoulli, DeMoivre, Kolmogorov, Von Mises, Wright, Rao, Jeffreys, Efron, Galton, Blackwell, etc...vs Galois, Ramsey, Green, Hamilton, Teichmuller, Descartes, Turing, Wronski, Schwartz, Conlon, Ramanujan, Abel, Riemann, Pascal...hmmm, mathematics is mord, eh?
What, you say these are no random samples, never mind simple random samples? That I stacked the deck with deliberate choice of samples to prove a point already decided upon? Gee, what is good for the global warming gander is good for the goose, ain't it????
8 comments:
Do you think Pepe would know what variance means? Hah!
Impressive, AA. As a pro, is there anything further you would do to the data? To me it seems a slam-dunk.
IAH ought to check against Calif, Ariz,... and do the same analysis.
Simpson's paradox is cool.
Simpson's paradox is really cool. My AP Statistics students at first didn't believe it, but now they keep offering fresh examples they come across.
This one here is fckng superb.
I must confess, this is the first time I hear of this paradox (I never took a stats class, nor taught one, if that's an excuse). But it's real cool.
BTW, old man Simpson is still kicking, though pushing 90 by now. Does this show statisticians live longer? Surely not, but hey, maybe it does.
At least it gives hope for parodoxical statisticians.. Heck, now you have me going on a "do famous statisticians live longer than famous mathematicians?" riff. Graunt, Fisher, Pearson, Bernoulli, DeMoivre, Kolmogorov, Von Mises, Wright, Rao, Jeffreys, Efron, Galton, Blackwell, etc...vs Galois, Ramsey, Green, Hamilton, Teichmuller, Descartes, Turing, Wronski, Schwartz, Conlon, Ramanujan, Abel, Riemann, Pascal...hmmm, mathematics is mord, eh?
What, you say these are no random samples, never mind simple random samples? That I stacked the deck with deliberate choice of samples to prove a point already decided upon? Gee, what is good for the global warming gander is good for the goose, ain't it????
Perfectly chosen samples. You're da Mann!
Post a Comment