Maybe the title should have been when numbers seem to lie.

I’m over here, like, clearly the problem is the placebo. Take that irrelevant variable out!

maybe the fucking title should be "when I lie for clickbait because I'm that much a fuckwit"

+Picotry Nice, I like that quote :)

Thank you! :)

+LarlemMagic absolutely

+LarlemMagic *ding* *ding* *ding* We have our winner :D

+LarlemMagic of course, it's just that debunking what's probably the biggest hoax in today's western world in order to show an example could be quite distracting :-)

+Scapegoat how does that apply exactly?

+fahadAKAme Departments with higher acceptance rates are like higher overall paying jobs. I'm not saying anything about weather or not the wage gap exists, but if you were studying it you would ABSOLUTELY need to account for Simpson's paradox. It would destroy your data. If all women were payed $1 for every dollar men made in each field, but more men were in higher paying fields of work, then your overall data could show men making more. Don't hate me though. I'm not saying the wage gap doesn't exist, just that any study investigating it would need to account for the paradox.

Do u

paradox? you mean mistake/human error?

Thank you! I really appreciate it.

+Viola Buddy Indeed that is the case. Makes medical studies very difficult to interpret and extremely prone to error.

Viola Buddy If you know that women can more easily recover from a disease, then that means you know that the men and women should be given proportional amounts with men getting half and women getting half. It's also worth considering that the probability of only 50 men getting the drug and 150 women getting the drug is extremely low. It's less than one in a trillion.

Getting exactly 100 men and 100 women is going to be about 0.05635 (5.6%); however, it's more important to consider ranges here. For there to be 50 men or less (0 to 50) with the drug, the probability is 4.197E-13. For there to be either less than 50 men or more than 150 men with the drug, the probability is double at 8.397E-13. Remember that a trillion is 1E-12 and this number is lower. The probability of 90 to 110 men getting the drug is 0.84182 (84.1%). So you only have 0.15818 (15.8%) probability of even getting outside that range. You have less than a percent chance of getting outside the 82 to 118 range.

+Viola Buddy Sex difference may change the way body's chemistry works. There's little reason to believe that people's names change their body chemistry.

+DanielMasey I'd call a 4 percent gap too small to worry about. In other statistical situations it might even be smaller than the error factor. Also, when it comes to social stuff you should probably allow a fair amount of wiggle room. As a man I do sometimes feel that discrimination against men is ignored, but I'm not gonna quibble over anything less than a 10% gap. Heck, I'll even listen to arguments justifying some discrimination, though I haven't heard any that hold up. On the same topic, there may be some apparent discrimination against men that turns out to be correlation not causation.

Timothy King If the revised data showed 4% higher acceptance for males the suit would have continued.

tbh, a similar trend is showed across most levels of education: Women and men are basically equal but only when fully grown. While they are still developing (which can take until the late 20s to finalize brain development), women hold a small but nontrivial advantage. This, coupled with societal perceptions against women taking certain trades assumed to be the domain of men that happen to not require college degrees (plumbing, construction, etc.), and suddenly you arrive at a weird situation where college educated women grossly outnumber men. Such overrepresentation is fairly recent, as many colleges previously either discriminated against women subtly or just tried to aim for 50/50 but now admit applicants gender-blind.

Roman Nasuti Gender blind plus special scholarships for women and oh wait

Because they are not women.. Man are not whiny bitches...

I actually hadn't taken a stats course yet when I made this video, and I didn't want to risk getting any details wrong. I might include more details if I ever decide to remake it.

Wow. I just assumed you were a physics teacher, either at school or at a college. Soooooo, not to be too subtle about this but I'd be happy to collab on such a thing, even though I realise that there basically no union between the our sets of audiences.

+Kieron George Pretty much. The tricky part is finding all the variables with possible causal relationships and correcting for those as well.

+Frame of Essence God, i love this channel, you da real MVP.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obCqht14x8zHYJ8.html

Andy Adshead Yes, but if we had forgotten to account for gender in our calculations, we never would have that discovered that they were incorrect. We started out with the wrong totals, and we needed to find out that the totals were wrong by splitting them up for each gender. Who knows what other hidden variables we didn't find? If we missed any, then we may have added *them* up wrongly too. But how do we know we found every one?

Whoever set up the problem had to add the fractions together to get the numbers you see on screen, he added them wrong it's as simple as that. If I just added up the first 2 fractions and said they give 100% then everybody would just call me stupid so I fail to see why this carefully set up stupid maths is any different. Long story short if you tried to advertise with these numbers then your ad (at least in the uk) would just be pulled for lying.

Andy Adshead But the totals weren't found by adding up fractions in this example. They were found by simply counting the number of people with the real drug who recovered, and counting the number of people with the placebo who recovered. And you're right, this is the wrong way to do it, and there likely would be consequences if these numbers were published. As you said, you should look for all the hidden variables and add them with equal denominators for each one. But not everyone will notice a problem with the flawed calculations, which is what I find so interesting.

It decreases, it doesn't disappear.

Mark Neu If you’re looking at the U.S., then yeah, it disappears.

The equation has a tau instead of a pi, so it still holds.

Frame of Essence oh... thanks :)

no problem :)

It's a tau, not pi.

true... thanks

انا منظمة بص بصة عالمصادر

أنا يا كبير 😂

مطلعتش الوحيد اللى بيبص على المصادر

منورين والله

+Maksim Bandel It's a tau, not a pi.

that's not pi, that's the cyrrilic pe.

علقتلك ٣ مرات 😂😂😂

It actually says e^(i*tau) where tau=2*pi

+Frame of Essence oh yeah then its right :) nice video btw

+Pieter Luyten Thank you :)

Grow up

Luis Valentim But the final message clarifies it anyway. And the current title is so catchy.

You are right. I'm just so tired of misleading titles and lies everywhere... Please let me have numbers as the last honest thing. Great work by the way.

Luis Valentim Thanks :)

+Luis Valentim Wait, so how is the title wrong?

Numbers don't lie

Steve Wil not really. What he said is actually a big problem in statistics.

They wouldn't listen anyway.