Y'all
So which is it? Interocular or intraocular. I find the infamous IOTT described
all over the internet as both interocular AND intraocular. I've always
understood intraocular based on, for example, intraocular surgery or
intraocular injection- i.e., into the eye. Interocular as between or
Wouldn't intraocular be WITHIN the eye, and interocular be BETWEEN the eyes? It
should be the second, I think.
Chris
...
Christopher D Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo
On 2013-04-24, at 3:04 AM, Tim Shearon
On the lighter side, one of my statistics professors liked to talk about
the inter-ocular effect: An effect so big it hit you right between the
eyes (and the statistical analysis was a matter of confirming the obvious).
:-)
Claudia
_
Claudia J.
Dear Tipsters,
Continuing on Claudia's lighter side, whenever we consider results in the
research methods course (either from an article or one of our projects), I
always ask the class to say what their eyeballs are telling them. Then we look
at the stats to see if the eyeballs are correct or
e...@ubishops.caTo: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" tips@fsulist.frostburg.eduSent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:53:24 AMSubject: RE: [tips] Polling...
Dear Tipsters,
Continuing on Claudia’s lighter side, whenever we
I refer to the Iball statistic.
Cheers,
[Karl L. Wuensch]http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm
From: Claudia Stanny [mailto:csta...@uwf.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:46 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Polling...
On the lighter side
: [tips] Polling...
On the lighter side, one of my statistics professors liked to talk about the
inter-ocular effect: An effect so big it hit you right between the eyes (and
the statistical analysis was a matter of confirming the obvious).
:-)
Claudia
I was told the same thing in my stats classes, although one of our resident
statisticians here has no problem with it. To be it's a dichotomous decision,
but I was also taught not to say things like a result approached
significance. Is this a somewhat arbitrary guideline? Maybe. But it's the
I get a similar reaction when I read that expression. The question for me is
this: Has there ever been a consensus as to what obtained p level merits that
designation?
Miguel
- Original Message -
From: Marc Carter marc.car...@bakeru.edu
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
, Department of Behavioral and Health Sciences
College of Arts Sciences
Baker University
--
From: MiguelRoig [mailto:miguelr...@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 1:10 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Polling...
I get a similar reaction when I read
Highly significant conflates statistical rarity with impact (importance
of the effect, the size of the effect).
On the other hand, I think approaching significance can be useful and I
will defend that practice (although I wouldn't push its use in a
publication).
Many statisticians note the
I still emphasize this in my classes. I do not like significance used without
statistical before, as I find this soon leads to such statements, and other,
unwarranted inferences. However, other colleagues and editors apparently feel
that the context of such use (results sections, etc.) is
You can't teach an old dogma new tricks. Dorothy Parker
From: Claudia Stanny [mailto:csta...@uwf.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:27 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Polling...
Highly significant conflates statistical rarity with impact
The use is a highly irritating conflation of a dichotomous decision and
an indication of effect size.
Ken
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph. D.steel...@appstate.edu
Professor and Assistant Chairperson
in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] Polling...
Claudia
You make reasonable arguments. It’s debatable, ultimately, as the decision
criteria can be thought of flexibly (as in, this is early so I used a softer
criterion of .07, or similar arguments) OR as a disciplinary cut-off
No, you are not being too picky and this is why I think so: Suppose instead of
a simple t-test for independent means you had several conditions and for some
reason did a collection of t-tests among the means. You knew to take a
Bonferoni correction for alpha so that it was necessarily reduced,
To me, the phrase approaching significance implies that all we need to
do is run a few more subjects until we see significance, a practice
known to bolster your chances for a type I error.
Bill Scott
Claudia Stanny 04/22/13 1:28 PM
Highly significant
[cid:image008.jpg@01CE3F73.D292AD60]
[cid:image009.jpg@01CE3F73.D292AD60]
___
From: William Scott [mailto:wsc...@wooster.edu]
Sent: April 22, 2013 4:01 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips
Hi
I do think there are places where qualifiers to significant (or statistically
significant) are appropriate. An effect that has p = .002 is quite different
in my mind than p = .048, and highly significant vs significant would
appear to capture that. Indeed isn't that the logic behind APA's
Hi Marc-
Not only do I abhor the term highly significant I also dislike the term
significant. I always taught my students to use the term statistically
reliable instead. significant implies that the results are important. That
is a value judgement which should be made after careful
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:03:12 -0700, Marc Carter wrote:
Hi, All --
A poll:
Am I being too picky about the use of the phrase, highly significant (or
something similar) when it's used to describe a very low-probability
result?
It sort of drives me crazy; all I can hear is my graduate math stats
21 matches
Mail list logo
