Originally posted by: BlackTigers
Originally posted by: Injury
http://www.broadcaster.com/clip/6237
omg lol
I love 'The Office'.
Originally posted by: BlackTigers
Originally posted by: Injury
http://www.broadcaster.com/clip/6237
omg lol
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: illusion88
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: bignateyk
Originally posted by: sdifox
err, just pure guessing would statistically get you more than 50% right.
How so?
There are more straight men than gay men.
read the article
was not commenting on their method, rather their conclusion.
Originally posted by: illusion88
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: illusion88
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: bignateyk
Originally posted by: sdifox
err, just pure guessing would statistically get you more than 50% right.
How so?
There are more straight men than gay men.
read the article
was not commenting on their method, rather their conclusion.
No you weren't. You said "There are more straight men than gay men". Which has nothing to do with 15 peoples ability to detect someones sexual orientation in 50 milliseconds.
You were saying that there are more strait men than gay men which is actually untrue. In the study there were 90 pictures, 45 of them of gay men, 45 of them of straight men. So in fact there were and equal amount of gay and straight men shown to the 15 people who took the test. So "pure guessing" would net about 50% accuracy.
Originally posted by: Baked
Just so you know, only gay people have gaydar.
This is true. But only if you failed statistics.Originally posted by: Injury
Because there is a 50/50 chance of probability of "gay" or "not gay"... it's like answering false on all questions on a true false quiz when you didn't study... unless the teacher decides to throw a curve ball, probability says that you'll get half of them correct.
If they used 50% pictures of gay people and 50% pictures of straight people, and if you said that all of the people in the pictures were gay, you'd be 50% correct.
If they went with a more real-life scenario of 75% straight and 25% gay, then you'd be 75% correct if you guessed all of them were straight.
The study was really a guessing game. When people get 50-70% of them correct, then it's usually safe to chalk that one up to coincidence.
Not to mention that merely showing photographs of people is hardly a scientific way to make a study like this.
Statistical methods required for this sort of publication account for the number of observations. If the data indicate that there is a statistically significant difference with only 15 people, then the data are pretty consistent.Originally posted by: illusion88
The real problem with the study isn't it's method, it's the fact that they are drawing this conclusion after testing only 15 students.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is true. But only if you failed statistics.Originally posted by: Injury
Because there is a 50/50 chance of probability of "gay" or "not gay"... it's like answering false on all questions on a true false quiz when you didn't study... unless the teacher decides to throw a curve ball, probability says that you'll get half of them correct.
If they used 50% pictures of gay people and 50% pictures of straight people, and if you said that all of the people in the pictures were gay, you'd be 50% correct.
If they went with a more real-life scenario of 75% straight and 25% gay, then you'd be 75% correct if you guessed all of them were straight.
The study was really a guessing game. When people get 50-70% of them correct, then it's usually safe to chalk that one up to coincidence.
Not to mention that merely showing photographs of people is hardly a scientific way to make a study like this.
This is ATOT, not a classroom. If you want a statistics lesson, you're going to have to get in line and pay for it like all the other rich kids that pay my salary.Originally posted by: Injury
Your explanation about simple factors of probability and how it relates to me be wrong is completely mind-blowing and I can't possibly believe, with the overwhelming response you so diligently typed out, that I even said that in the first place.
said if you had actually decided to explain your reasoning and why you seem to think correlation = causation.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is ATOT, not a classroom. If you want a statistics lesson, you're going to have to get in line and pay for it like all the other rich kids that pay my salary.Originally posted by: Injury
Your explanation about simple factors of probability and how it relates to me be wrong is completely mind-blowing and I can't possibly believe, with the overwhelming response you so diligently typed out, that I even said that in the first place.
http://could have</"> sa...rrelation = causation.
No, it means I understand what I'm talking about enough for students to pay $100 per lecture for me to tell them about it. Try to keep up. Get back to me when you figure out what a T-test is and how it might apply to the current topic.Originally posted by: Injury
Which is another way of saying you're just saying shit to say it.
Originally posted by: queenrobot
I thought you could buy Gaydar at The Sharper Image?