11–20 of 28 posts
In other news: > "'I was too fat' Boris Johnson says we must lose weight to fight Coronavirus" Perhaps the new svelter Boris will have the side benefit of reducing Tory expenses scandals.
Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep a-nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.
N = 299. Not sure how meaningful those results are.
I'm no statistician, but since the underlying population in this case (the set of all politicians) is much smaller than the general population, shouldn't that mean that a smaller sample size is more representative?
More accurate title: Obese post-Soviet politicians correlate with corruption.
In other news: > "'I was too fat' Boris Johnson says we must lose weight to fight Coronavirus" Perhaps the new svelter Boris will have the side benefit of reducing Tory expenses scandals.
Expenses scandals are a pointless distraction. The lowest hanging fruit of corruption in the UK is the stuffing of the House of Lords.
N = 299. Not sure how meaningful those results are.
N is 15, not 299. This is comparing one measure for each of the 15 countries against three other measures (cabinet minister's average obesity Vs. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, World Bank worldwide governance indicator Control of Corruption, and Index of Public Integrity). The 299 is the combined number of cabinet ministers whose weight were averaged, which is a single measure per location,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
N is 15, not 299. This is comparing one measure for each of the 15 countries against three other measures (cabinet minister's average obesity Vs. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, World Bank worldwide governance indicator Control of Corruption, and Index of Public Integrity). The 299 is the combined number of cabinet ministers whose weight were averaged, which is a single measure per location,…
N = 15 is a lot larger than you think when the highest possible N is ~200.
This one may not be answerable via this methodology. Even if you did all 200 countries, there just may not be enough high quality data to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
I'm not even saying the conclusion is wrong, I am saying the data doesn't exist to determine if it is right OR wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
N is 15, not 299. This is comparing one measure for each of the 15 countries against three other measures (cabinet minister's average obesity Vs. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, World Bank worldwide governance indicator Control of Corruption, and Index of Public Integrity). The 299 is the combined number of cabinet ministers whose weight were averaged, which is a single measure per location,…
N = 15 is a lot larger than you think when the highest possible N is ~200.
Every single signal points for non-significance of this article. What, of course, is just reason to test it in another population. But instead people will just keep repeating it as if the findings were true.
Fat shaming?