Sorry, pet peeve: 0.13% can easily be “statistically significant” with a large enough data set. Because “statistical significance” is a technical term that describes the influence of sampling errors on a result. I expect you mean something like “important”, or “meaningful”.
Please do not apologize I appreciate the correction. It's been a long time since that class and I didn't really like it either 🤣 but is my point still correct? It seems illogical to talk about this as a transgender issue if .13% of the shooters are transgender? As in Speaker and Veep misleading?
The way they're using numbers is just rhetorical bullshit. “0.13%" sounds very scientific and objective, but their conclusions are neither. Personally, I'd ask, “How do you know it's not 0.12%?” and—when they say the difference doesn't matter—“If the 3 doesn't matter, why did you report it?”
If I had added to the last sentence - statistically significant "given the size of the data set" would that have been accurate?
IMO, you just want to avoid “statistically significant” because its technical meaning is so narrow, and it does not mean anything like “important”—even though that's what is sounds like it means. In other words, a statistically significant result isn't necessarily a significant result.
Thank you. I always like to learn something and while posting something wrong is embarrassing it’s nice to know, on this at least, I won’t have it happen again because of you 🙂
What an intelligent, gracious response to someone. I loved seeing it and thought I’d jump in to say 👏👏👏
I think I am remembering a low C in that class 😂