Comment Re: A Less Hysterical Take (Score 1) 360
Aaah... sorry for your waste of time typing.
In the article that you cite as Source of Wisdom and Holy Book in your crusade against Hysteria there are two considerable statistical Blunders (with capitals):
First of all: You cannot talk about statistical significance or not in a scalar value. You could with discrete values in a distribution that may seem random and where you could analyse if a given measure (such as the median or mean ) is or not statistically significant. BUT: This does NOT apply to single data point, sorry. AND this does not apply to a scalar.
Second of all: There is no need to ame a deep analysis to see if a number is higher than other/s, and if thsi is not obvious you will have to visit a doctor (a physic s this implies lost of grey matter, mate).
So mate, again, sorry for the calories you wanted typing, but your Guru needs a recap in statistics .
Should I point out the blunder of the 95%? I don't think is necessary, right?
What your dear potential girlfriend writes is nothing but gibberish.