From: Jan Willem Nienhuys To: All Msg #41, Oct-26-92 08:59AM Subject: Re: "Mars Effect": JWN replies Ertel's 23/10 post (pt 2a) Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands From: wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) Message-ID: 6050@tuegate.tue.nl Reply-To: wsadjw@urc.tue.nl Newsgroups: sci.skeptic In article <6049@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes: ># ># 2.5 Inferential statistics. ># >#Dr. Nienhuys came up with z = 1.23 as deviation of observed Mars- >#born athletes (N = 271/1,076) from chance expectation which he >#estimated as N = 247/1,076 (G% = 22.93%). "Not impressive", he >#says. Error probability would be p = .11, so his statement could >#be rephrased by "not significant" ,i.e., not reaching >#p = .05, the conventional significance level. I calculated from Gauquelin 1972 (or rather from a table quoted there) on the basis of the mentioned 24,961 "ordinary people" that 22.9% is correct. I interpolated the expected values given for the 12-sector distribution (with sectors 1,2,3 and 10,11,12 making up rising and culminating standard sectors) to values for sectors 36 and 9, and arrived at the 22.9%. Originally I had applied the ratio 17.2/16.67 to 8/36, giving about the same. It doesn't matter whether one does it with the theoretical values or the actual observed values in that table. >As Professor Ertel will recall, I estimated the standard deviation >at about 14 absolute, no matter what the exact value was for G%. > >However, the z = 1.23 was computed not from the 22.93 estimate, >but from another one, namely the middle value 23.6 of Ertel's shift >simulations. (Which I told Ertel, on his request). I clearly stated >(I think) that I don't know the "true" expected value. I guess the middle value (from a uniform distribution coming out of Ertel's method) should be discarded. If we believe 22.9%, then this gives z = 1.78. Interesting, unless you insist on two-sided tests. >#Zelen's expectancy of 21.84%. Now, if we use as control 21.84% >#obtained by unsuspected skeptics and essentially confirmed by my >#"replication", the indicator z for CFEPP's Mars G% with athletes >#(N = 271) goes up: z = 2.658 , p = 0.0039. That is, even if we >#follow Dr. Nienhuys' statistical approach and do it correctly the >#result strongly supports the Gauquelin hypothesis. Observe the interesting discrepancy between 21.8 and 22.9, both coming out of a tabulation of results of about 20,000 people. Statistical theory says that the uncertainty in the percentage should be around 0.3 percent. And now we have a difference of 3 times that. "Hurray, again something significant"? (Two-sided at the 0.05 level! Chi-squared = 4.1, 1 df, roughly) Certainly not. No prior hypothesis. No test to check especially that hypothesis. Just an indication that this type of data *might* have more scatter to it than those nice binomially distributed variables from probability theory. JWN BTW, is anybody really interested in this, except Ertel and me? I hate to think that this is degenerating into some kind of SS (siano-sheaffer) dispute.

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank