Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words (view source)

Revision as of 14:51, July 25, 2010

432 bytes added ,  14:51, July 25, 2010
→‎Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test: Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the r
Line 128: Line 128:     
<p>That you were able to repeat this  process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...</p>
 
<p>That you were able to repeat this  process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...</p>
 +
 +
: Selection bias exists in any study.  The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results.  Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
    
===An unbiased test===
 
===An unbiased test===
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,204

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/797466"

Navigation menu