Yesterday on the radio I heard the phrase 'statistically significant' twice (one on a discussion about crime and other about cancer). We all think we know what it is: If all the birds overhead poo on you simultaneously, you know, it cannot be a random event. It is surely a statistically signifcant event full of practical consequences ordered by an angry diety to dirty your atheistic bald head (alright, my atheistic bald head). Nevertheless, if you aren't a scientist or a statistician, a short readup may help, because, it ain't so simple. The wikipedia page is not laymanish (if you are an expert, why not create a page that's simpler). I liked this answer, which is a good starting point.
The Scientific Indian
Science as a way of life
Search
Profile
I am working on some very smart things to say here. Really. Meanwhile, there's this and this. Welcome.
Suggestions
Recent Posts
- Winding down this blog
- Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction
- Vigorous Scrubbing, the musical
- Google Female Human Body Browser
- Dr Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats
- Why is space dark?
- I want to save my people
- How close can you get to a Neutron Star
- Wikileaks
- What did Ed Witten do in college
Recent Comments
- loans on Inidbloggies 2006 - Results Announced
- writer freelance jobs on Starting young
- WongSHELLY on What are worthwhile problems: Feynman's moving letter
- Naresh on Pranav Mistry's SixthSense
- onkar on Pranav Mistry's SixthSense
- Nikhil K on Bible and blood in my backyard
- D. C. Sessions on If your parents don't like Ubuntu
- Riesz Fischer on Entangled Reality
- anon on A matter of Life and er... Matter
- Len on A matter of Life and er... Matter
RSS Feed
Archives
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
« A Poem | Main | Big list of books »
Statistically significant
Category: Prime Stream
Posted on: October 30, 2007 5:37 AM, by Selva
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/54306
Comments
Nice links.
The most common misunderstanding, I think, is to believe that a "statistically significant" difference means "big difference." Size of difference matters to statistically significance, but so does both the actual variation involved in the measures and the degree of confidence in the estimate of the means and variance. So a very small difference could be statistically significant if the range of variation is narrow and the means are close.
In the examnple cited in your second link, the difference between 18 and 20 individuals is unlikely to be be statistically significant given the provided information, but that does not mean that the difference is not real. But a second experiment with 10,000 rats in each treatment (control and provided with the mediation) with the same result would likely be statistically significant. But not otherwise particularly significant.
Unless you are one of the two percent of rats that were saved by the drug!
Posted by: Greg Laden | October 30, 2007 11:49 AM
@ Greg Laden
Just to clarify, this is true as long as the "same result" means 18% versus 20% survival (not 18 versus 20 individual survivors). Obviously, that's what you meant, but I thought I'd make it explicit.
Posted by: qetzal | October 30, 2007 12:45 PM
Selva, perhaps reading statistical significance along with p-value will give a better understanding as well as address the issues raised by the above two commenters
Posted by: Patrix | October 30, 2007 3:01 PM
Thanks folks. I am muddling through. Interestingly enough, it seems impossible to be able to intuitively appreciate 'statistical significance', I'll lay the blame on our evolutionary predisposition for pattern spotting even when there is none.
Posted by: Selva | October 31, 2007 3:55 AM