I'm assuming here that you misunderstood this part. Though you quoted the entire post. Slashdot Beta?

I am not talking about a single issue nor am I conflating their t-tests with their probit regressions.
I'm talking about several separate cases in the survey and in the paper where the language and variables used indicate either a pro-West or anti-East bias.
Which is basically code for "NOT-socialist" in this case, as seen below.

By the end of the paper they simply decide that doing calculations for "West German family" variable isn't needed.
"Meh, we found nothing there.
But look! We got this one point in a very small cherry picked sample that PROVES East Germans are cheaters!"

Nor am I misunderstanding surveying for dichotomous, binary, values.
I'm pointing out that the way the values are set up (i.e. a West German family which is a positive 1 and a NOT West German family - a 0) indicates a pro-West bias.
Which alone, doesn't mean much. But when you take in account the the rest of the paper...

Stuff like this:

I.e. "Because we can't find any proof for our original hypothesis, here's another cherry picked proof for an unrelated hypothesis - never mind the ignoratio elenchi taking place.
Wasn't it obvious we were gunning for a "proof" that socialism promotes cheating and not that a more general definition of East or West German family heritage does?
Why not just jump on another hypothesis as if we were proving that all the time, cause we can't find enough data to back up our claims for the original hypothesis? How about that?"

They had to get the sample down to 41 people (from a sample of 110, from a population of 259 - note how they only had 90 East Germans a table ago) in order to get ANY significant result regarding the age - cause that's what they are proving now.
Literally, that's the ONLY SIGNIFICANT RESULT IN THEIR ENTIRE REGRESSION CALCULATION.
That AGE of the subject matters and NOT his/her family heritage they've been talking about the whole time.

AND there is NO (zero, zip, nada, keine...) data presented for West Germans in that same period.
Apparently, there were no West Germans in 1970s but there were at least 41 East Germans.

That's cherry picking and replacing of the original argument with a different one, which though it sounds similar is ultimately irrelevant to the original hypothesis.

Plus they are misrepresenting results for other marginal effects of their probit regression - quoting them THOUGH they are not statistically significant for the p-value they've set up.
The link to the paper is in the summary. Go look it up.

Frankly, silicone still has a purpose that graphite doesn't fulfil.

But thanks for showing it.

Study was done on 259 Germans.
Out of which "90 subjects reported having an East German family background and 98 subjects having a West German family background."

Too small a sample size to be of any use? Indeed.
They are way out in the "our numbers mean diddly-squat" territory, as their margins of error are 7.82% (WGFB) and 8.36% (EGFB).
http://www.raosoft.com/samples...

I.e. when they report 9% and 19% average cheating that's actually 9 +/- 7.82% and 19 +/- 8.36%.
It could just as well be that WGFB are cheating 16% of the time while EGFB are cheating only 11% of the time.
Oh damn! Now it means that "because democracy, stupid", levels of interpersonal trust are lowered in the west.

Also...
They all rolled the dice only 40 times. A fair dice should give an average mean of 3.5.
They report average mean for "East German family background" (90 people) to be 3.83.
For "West German family background" (98 people) they report an average mean of 3.68.
But when you sample those same Germans whether they CONSIDER THEMSELVES East, West or just Germans - simply Germans (141 people) have an average mean of 3.70 while East/West Germans (73 people) have an average of 3.83.

Note how, smaller the sample the more extreme the result gets? That's because the overall sample size is too small.
A couple of people misreporting the results could be throwing the whole thing off.
AND they have a really strange sample of "German family heritage" (37 people), whatever that should mean as East-West was set as a 0-1 choice, who are practically not cheating at all, giving the average of 3.57.
While "others" (i.e. immigrants) cheat the most. 3.85. And yes, they are the smallest sample of only 30 people.

On the other hand... the incentive to cheat was simply not there.
At best, rolling a 6 all the time (i.e. cheating 100%), they'd get 6 Euros in the end. A cup of coffee costs about 4.2 Euros.
So people were supposedly cheating in order to get between 0.07 and 0.35 Euros?

After agreeing to participate, each subject received an envelope with six single 1 EUR coins,
the maximal possible payout on the die task we used to measure cheating. Subjects were then
asked to throw a physical die 40 times.

  ...
 
The payout that subjects ultimately received was determined by selecting one of their
rolls at random, by having the experimenter draw a number from 1 to 40 out of an envelope.
Subjects earned 1 EUR for each dot on this particular roll. If subjects were completely honest,
they would be expected to report deciding on the high side of the die in 50 percent of cases,
and the expected value of the average payout would be 3.50 EUR.

But there was plenty room for false positives as they used physical dice they ASSUMED were fair.
When IRL a dice shorter by 3% on one side gives 6% more results on that side.
And low quality, toy store bought, dice are even worse.

Also, East-West bias can be noted in the stats measured and stats assumed.
No regression calculation was reported for West German family, while t-test values were always fixed (i.e. assumed) for East Germans and always calculated for West Germans.
And there's that thing of "East German family background" being marked with a 0 and "West German family background" being marked with a 1.
Someone seems to like West Germans better.

I hate to admit it, but I just happen to have an erect penis reading your public communications on Slashdot.

To be fair, it was erect before I opened the page. I think the SEO consultant sitting next to me is ovulating.

It might cause a few deaths but it also sustains the multi billion dollar prison industry and employs well over 1 million people in the US alone

None of those jobs help the economy. Why should people be employed in occupations that have no benefit to society whatever and are in fact detrimental to society?

The government profits from illegal drugs even more than drug cartels do.

Colorado's pot legalization and the multi-billion dollar alcohol industry shows that governments profit a lot more from legal, regulated drugs than outlawing them.

I've known drug addicts, and the WHO is also right about compulsory addiction treatment; compulsory treatment flat out doesn't work. The addict has to want to stop, and it's very hard even when they want to. Alcoholics and other drug addicts relapse more often than not after treatment.

However, should they ever invent the fictional drug in the novel I'm writing (see my journal, the first crude draft is being posted there) I sure hope it's not legal!

I love this comment. This is exactly how myself and most other Israelis feel about Gaza. Too bad that Western media does not portray this about my area or any other conflict zone.

Or Lastpass, which doesn't have to be tied to the Lastpass site or service, but if you do opt to use the site or service then you get automatic syncing of the (encrypted) database on any decices you want (including phones).

I'm looking at the market, but as a hobby not a profession. My profession is devops. Drop me some ideas and I'll see if I can code them, just for learning sake. I'm looking for challenging real-world problems to solve.

If I ever make a cent on one of your ideas, I'll fill you in!

Thank you for providing that viewpoint.

The short, short history as I know it. Of course, there is my side of the story, the Arab side of the story, and somewhere in the middle is the truth.

The Jewish people (race and religion, as they were more tightly coupled before Constantine) have lived our entire existence in the land of Judea (since about 1040 BC). We were mostly dispersed by the Romans in 70 AD, but having been trying to return ever since. In the mean time, lots of other peoples have settled here. Most have come and gone (Romans, Byzantine, etc) and as of 1900 AD there were about 94% Muslims, 5% Jews, and a few others in the area. That was the start of the modern Zionist movement, when a series of political events came together and the time was deemed right to stop yearning for a return to Judea and to pack up and go. Nobody really had a problem with this yet: the Ottomans tolerated us and the Europeans were happy to see us go! Arabs and Jews were for the most part friendly, the place was barely populated (well under one million people).

With the fall of the Ottoman empire all the differing groups wanted their own state. Jews were pouring in from Europe, especially after the second great war, and tensions flared between the Jews who considered the land their ancestral homeland and the Muslims who have been living there for as long as they remember. Both have a claim to the land: the Jews have considered the land "theirs" for millennia and in fact it was made clear to them that nowhere else is safe for them (See: holocaust), and the Arabs were already living there.

Both sides tried rewriting history and both committed atrocities. A bunch of disinterested foreigners (UN) split up the land between Jews and Arabs: the Jews said thank you and the Arabs said "War!": thus the war that is today known as the War of Independence to me and is known as The Catastrophe to the Arabs. The Jews won that war, and the one after it (1956, started by Britain and France to steal the Suez canal from Egypt) and the one after is (1967, started by Egypt to destroy Israel) and the one after it (1973, started by Egypt and Syria to destroy Israel) and so on.

Just as an aside, with specific regard to Gaza, that area fell from Egyptian hands in 1956 and when that war ended Egypt refused to have it back! There are those (Gazans themselves, mostly) who argue that Gaza was deliberately ignored by Egypt to fester a people of hate to be used as a weapon against Israel. It worked: we were stuck with Gaza which had seen no development for the seven years following the 1948 war. Just look at where it is geographically in Egypt, and understand that Egyptians (yes, I have been to Egypt more than once) don't consider even Sinai to be a part of Egypt Proper just like Americans don't see Guam as part of America Proper. The Egyptian government barely has any control over the area, even today. Gaza especially was completely ungoverned during that (1948-1956) time. Since then, it has only gotten worse.