Permalink for Comment #1376635794 by SimpleMike

, comment by SimpleMike
SimpleMike @paulj said:
@Lemuria said:

There aren't any sample sizes, because they aren't any samples: These are populations. Statistical significance is typically a question of whether samples are large enough to make inferences *to* a population from which the sample was selected - but there's no such question here, because there's no such jump: The data include *all* known cases, and there are definitely cross-era differences.
Holy sh*t. I remember making this same argument years ago when making a comparison of teaching evaluations at the department level. You're right.
Your intuition is still relevant even though it isn't a sample. Outliers are more impactful to summary statistics in data sets with a small number of points.

If you look at every phish show in 2002 you can confirm that it didn't rain in any of the shows that year. That's an interesting pattern until you consider that there was only one show that year. When we see interesting patterns in small data it is reasonable to question whether the patterns are meaningful or simply a consequence of the data being limited.

I think this was paulj's observation.


Phish.net

Phish.net is a non-commercial project run by Phish fans and for Phish fans under the auspices of the all-volunteer, non-profit Mockingbird Foundation.

This project serves to compile, preserve, and protect encyclopedic information about Phish and their music.

Credits | Terms Of Use | Legal | DMCA

© 1990-2024  The Mockingbird Foundation, Inc. | Hosted by Linode