- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Half the schools are below average" - not always true
Posted on 9/30/14 at 10:04 am to TN Bhoy
Posted on 9/30/14 at 10:04 am to TN Bhoy
quote:
Actually, your OP shows that Tyson doesn't understand averages. The response he's going for in his speeches is "Of course half are below average, duh!".
If that is indeed true - then you are correct.
In fact statistics may be the most widely misunderstood concept amongst the educated professions (scientists, doctors, etc).
Nassim Taleb makes a point of this in his book "Fooled by Randomness".
Here's a good example he gives for how doctors don't understand statistics:
Given
A) that the false positive rate for a given test for a disease is 1% - and -
B) that the known rate of that disease in the population is 0.1%
EDIT - C) there are NO false negatives
What are the chances that a patient who tests positively for the disease actually has it?
According to Taleb (I forget if he cites a source or not) - doctors will give the wrong answer almost every time.
This post was edited on 9/30/14 at 10:12 am
4
Posted on 9/30/14 at 10:07 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
According to Taleb (I forget if he cites a source or not) - doctors will give the wrong answer almost every time.
Wouldn't the answer be 99%?
Posted on 9/30/14 at 6:58 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Almost everyone will give the wrong answer almost every time.
According to Taleb (I forget if he cites a source or not) - doctors will give the wrong answer almost every time.
The general public has a tough time figuring out 20% of 150 of the top of their heads; they darned sure aren't gonna get that question right.
Posted on 10/1/14 at 9:09 pm to SpidermanTUba
Your assertion is seriously flawed. If you have a population of 1,000,000 and the disease rate is 0.1%, then only 1000 people will get the disease. The biggest number you left out is "what percentage of the population are suspected of having the disease and are tested?" "What percentage of those tested, test negative?" "What percentage of those who test negative are falsely negative?"
Let's assume it is .15 percent being tested (1500 people). Of those, 1000 have tested positive for the disease, 15 people had a false positive and 485 tested negative. Therefore, the chance that someone who tested positive actually has the disease is 98.5%.
Let's assume it is .15 percent being tested (1500 people). Of those, 1000 have tested positive for the disease, 15 people had a false positive and 485 tested negative. Therefore, the chance that someone who tested positive actually has the disease is 98.5%.
Posted on 10/12/14 at 5:43 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
If that is indeed true - then you are correct.
In fact statistics may be the most widely misunderstood concept amongst the educated professions (scientists, doctors, etc).
Nassim Taleb makes a point of this in his book "Fooled by Randomness".
Here's a good example he gives for how doctors don't understand statistics:
Given
A) that the false positive rate for a given test for a disease is 1% - and -
B) that the known rate of that disease in the population is 0.1%
EDIT - C) there are NO false negatives
What are the chances that a patient who tests positively for the disease actually has it?
According to Taleb (I forget if he cites a source or not) - doctors will give the wrong answer almost every time.
Just thought I'd bring up the false positive rate problem again - as it related to Ebola.
Given that the false positive rate for a certain rapid test is 3 in 1000
quote:
One major issue with this kind of rapid-testing quarantine is the phenomenon of false positives. But P.C.R.-based testing for Ebola has a low false-positive rate (three per 1,000), and its accuracy could be further improved by focusing on patients who come from particular geographic regions or by using more refined questionnaires.
LINK
I would say we should only be testing planes from countries with active ebola outbreaks, where the incidence rate exceeds 3 per 1000. Otherwise, most of the folks we isolate for the disease won't actually have it.
This post was edited on 10/12/14 at 5:44 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News