You can start here http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307453421/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=washpost-books-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0307453421&adid=1BVPCPMAZESPRHXFP17B
Here's a shorter article. Murray is up to his same routine, the gross misuse of stats to prove a racially charged point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-white-people/2012/01/20/gIQAmlu53Q_story.html On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > that's pretty interesting. And no, it's not on Google books, but I read the > NY Times review. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/books/review/charles-murray-examines-the-white-working-class-in-coming-apart.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Maybe? I'd have to look at it to know whether I could. Is this something >> that's on google books? NM I'll look myself. >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com >wrote: >> >>> >>> Forgot to mention the really difficult part is correctly figuring out the >>> range of those results. A good well controlled study will have a very >>> narrow range. A study that has problems with reliability, sample size, >>> etc, >>> will have a very wide range. Another way to look at it is if the range of >>> differences encompasses 0 by any substantial amount, most likely it means >>> that the differences are not meaningful. >>> >>> Speaking of such, I'm prepping a statistical criticism of the latest book >>> byCharles Murray, author of the Bell Curve. Want to join in? >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my >>> notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and >>> counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical >>> power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect >>> sizes. Makes me wish at times I stayed with single case designs. >>> > >>> > 10 word or less that is really difficult. Can I go for 30? >>> > >>> > But you've essentially got the idea. I left out a lot, range estimation >>> and correction for error andthat sort of thing, but yes. >>> > >>> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you >>> are >>> >> right, I think but what Maureen and I said is an .... ok 10 words or >>> less >>> >> version. >>> >> >>> >> In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else >>> right, >>> >> these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%. >>> >> >>> >> I realize that's it's not a given that the 1% is random or that it >>> won't >>> >> occur the next time you repeat the experiment, but I think that is a >>> rather >>> >> fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between >>> >> Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I >>> don't >>> >> have that right then fine, tell me, but if you're going to crank up >>> your >>> >> statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one out >>> >> thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand >>> at >>> >> ALL. >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons < larrycly...@gmail.com >>> >wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at >>> >>> statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is >>> as >>> >>> follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a >>> >>> significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you >>> replicated >>> >>> the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall >>> very >>> >>> close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that >>> >>> spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other >>> factors. >>> >>> It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a >>> smaller >>> >>> sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical >>> >>> significance. >>> >>> >>> >>> So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small > Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346969 > Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm > -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Issac Asimov ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346971 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
