11–20 of 42 posts
From the wikipedia page it seems to be a generalization on sampling below the Nyquist frequency can lead to incorrect interpretation of wave forms but in more dimensions.
Two different media for (occasionally) related work.
Calling whatever inverse relation was somehow crafted a "paradox" seems tendentious.
Am I the only one who dislikes this form of presentation, i.e. as a series of tweets?
TBH, I'd say it's less that I dislike this form of presentation than that I hate all the anti-pattern bloat that Twitter adds, like clickable items not being detectable by extensions and previews being cut off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you. Does anyone understand the difference between this and Simpson's paradox?
The latter appears when analyzing subgroups gives a different result than analyzing the pooled data. The former is about correlations that appear in samples which are not representative of the general population, due to the way that those samples are selected.
> The former is about correlations that appear in samples which are not representative of the general population, due to the way that those samples are selected.
You just said the same thing twice. Think about it.
For one you used terms like "subgroups" and "pooled data" and for the other "samples" and "general population". Those are the same things.
Then you used "[the effect] appears in" and in the other "correlations". Well, Simpsons paradox can also manifest itself in correlations. So you just said the same thing twice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The latter appears when analyzing subgroups gives a different result than analyzing the pooled data. The former is about correlations that appear in samples which are not representative of the general population, due to the way that those samples are selected.
> The latter appears when analyzing subgroups gives a different result than analyzing the pooled data. > The former is about correlations that appear in samples which are not representative of the general population, due to the way that those samples are selected. You just said the same thing twice. Think about it. For one you used terms like "subgroups" and "pooled data" and for the other "samples" and "general popu…
Am I the only one who dislikes this form of presentation, i.e. as a series of tweets?
In this case it's https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1373266475230789633.html
Edit to add: In this case I'd recommend wikipedia, the thread is quite short and light on details
Am I the only one who dislikes this form of presentation, i.e. as a series of tweets?
/meta
Am I the only one who dislikes this form of presentation, i.e. as a series of tweets?
The series of tweets for me just wasn't illuminating and I didn't get what the actual 'paradox' was given the graphs. But my issue was more that the graphs weren't clear in pointing out what I should be looking at. Wikipedia was much clearer for me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox , but ymmv of course. Another good statistical foible to be aware of along with Simpson's.