Comments on: My Humps: Bimodal Nookie Distributions http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/13/my-humps-bimodal-nookie-distributions/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Phil http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/13/my-humps-bimodal-nookie-distributions/comment-page-1/#comment-2953 Phil Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:40:38 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1980#comment-2953 Well OK, the proof doesn't assume this, but it only proves the trivial fact that the total number of "dances" participated in by boys and girls must be equal. One must then assume that the number of boys and girls is equal in order to show that the averages are equal, which is sort of the point. Well OK, the proof doesn’t assume this, but it only proves the trivial fact that the total number of “dances” participated in by boys and girls must be equal. One must then assume that the number of boys and girls is equal in order to show that the averages are equal, which is sort of the point.

]]> By: Phil http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/13/my-humps-bimodal-nookie-distributions/comment-page-1/#comment-2952 Phil Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:34:57 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1980#comment-2952 It's worth pointing out that the "proof" in the NYTimes article is complete bullshit, since it assumes equal numbers of males and females. Obviously if there's only one guy and twenty girls at the "prom," then the average number of partners can be higher for males than for females. Just saying. It’s worth pointing out that the “proof” in the NYTimes article is complete bullshit, since it assumes equal numbers of males and females. Obviously if there’s only one guy and twenty girls at the “prom,” then the average number of partners can be higher for males than for females. Just saying.

]]> By: LP http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/13/my-humps-bimodal-nookie-distributions/comment-page-1/#comment-2951 LP Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:23:44 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1980#comment-2951 A SciAm blogger who ought to know better fell for this too, but the commenters caught it:<br /> http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=men_average_more_sexual_partners_than_wo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&more=1#comments A SciAm blogger who ought to know better fell for this too, but the commenters caught it:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=men_average_more_sexual_partners_than_wo&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&more=1#comments

]]> By: Lane http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/13/my-humps-bimodal-nookie-distributions/comment-page-1/#comment-2950 Lane Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:21:17 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1980#comment-2950 Spot on. <em>See also</em> <a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_08_12-2007_08_18.shtml#1187027196" rel="nofollow">Volokh</a> Spot on. See also Volokh

]]> By: LP http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/13/my-humps-bimodal-nookie-distributions/comment-page-1/#comment-2949 LP Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:49:20 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1980#comment-2949 I notice that the NYT article performs the bait-and-switch in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs: In the 3rd, the article gives the 'median' figures, then in the 4th switches to 'average' (normally considered to be the same as the 'mean') without warning. Bad journalism, obviously, but these kinds of mistakes are awfully common when statistics are concerned. A few months ago I read an article in USA Magazine about the rising diabetes epidemic among african-american women, complete with a graph illustrating the numbers (a nice climbing line). Underneath the graph, in very small print, it said "These results are not statistically significant." I notice that the NYT article performs the bait-and-switch in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs: In the 3rd, the article gives the ‘median’ figures, then in the 4th switches to ‘average’ (normally considered to be the same as the ‘mean’) without warning. Bad journalism, obviously, but these kinds of mistakes are awfully common when statistics are concerned. A few months ago I read an article in USA Magazine about the rising diabetes epidemic among african-american women, complete with a graph illustrating the numbers (a nice climbing line). Underneath the graph, in very small print, it said “These results are not statistically significant.”

]]>