Timeline for Origin of group-level statistics in psychology and cognitive neuroscience
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Sep 5, 2014 at 20:30 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Sep 5, 2014 at 20:30 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 31, 2014 at 11:02 | answer | added | user3116 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Aug 30, 2014 at 4:08 | answer | added | Cbaker510 | timeline score: 1 | |
| S Aug 28, 2014 at 18:59 | history | bounty started | A. Donda | ||
| S Aug 28, 2014 at 18:59 | history | notice added | A. Donda | Draw attention | |
| Aug 27, 2014 at 5:12 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCogSci/status/504496708127297536 | ||
| Aug 26, 2014 at 19:18 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | Preaching to the choir :) but a lot of the (false) consensus probably built up around traditional practices that were "established" when both psychology and statistics were young sciences, borrowing heavily from biological research methods I'm sure. This isn't meant to be an answer, but I worry that a good one will be elusive. So much of statistical practice is a matter of finding a useful approximation of the phenomenon of interest; even basic improvements in these models like choosing to focus on the median instead of the mean seem to occur gradually and without consensus. | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 18:58 | comment | added | A. Donda | @NickStauner, yes, but even if we have to assume that no such invariants exist, that still doesn't necessarily mean that "population mean differs" is the thing we should be looking for. Distributions can be characterized in many different ways. | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 18:53 | comment | added | A. Donda | But the question is not about this specific alternative goal, since many different alternatives are conceivable, but just who decided when that it is specifically the population mean that we are interested in. If you can provide an answer, please do so. | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 18:52 | comment | added | A. Donda | @Josh, assuming a symmetrical distribution, if the population average is larger in one condition than in another condition, this merely means that the response is larger in more than 50% of the individuals, and smaller in less than 50% of the individuals. If the effect was present in every single individual, this would mean that the response is larger in 100% of the individuals. | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 16:41 | comment | added | Nick Stauner | @Josh: I think the difference is between effects that vary across individuals (hence are distributed in ways that make characteristics such as a mean and SD useful) and effects that do not (i.e., are invariant and universal / human nature), or at most vary nominally (i.e., differ in ways that can be described with discrete, unordered categories; e.g., sex, or maybe species). | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 13:28 | comment | added | Josh | I think I can provide an answer, but I'm trying to understand what the difference is between investigating a population-average response time and 'effects that are present in every single individual in the population' | |
| Aug 26, 2014 at 12:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 26, 2014 at 16:44 | |||||
| Aug 26, 2014 at 12:29 | history | asked | A. Donda | CC BY-SA 3.0 |