[HN Gopher] Berkson's Paradox
___________________________________________________________________
Berkson's Paradox
Author : alfongj
Score : 50 points
Date : 2021-03-24 13:20 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| tejtm wrote:
| 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.
| smitty1e wrote:
| I don't understand why a good book/good movie are even included
| here.
|
| Two different media for (occasionally) related work.
|
| Calling whatever inverse relation was somehow crafted a
| "paradox" seems tendentious.
| dang wrote:
| If curious, past threads:
|
| _Berkson 's Paradox_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18667423 - Dec 2018 (21
| comments)
|
| _Berkson 's Paradox_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8264252 - Sept 2014 (20
| comments)
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| Am I the only one who dislikes this form of presentation, i.e. as
| a series of tweets?
| rrmm wrote:
| 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.
| anitil wrote:
| I always go to threadreaderapp.
|
| 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
| SilasX wrote:
| You're not alone. I think it caught on because a long article
| (even with pictures) might seem like too much of an investment
| to a lot of people but a self-contained tweet that keeps
| getting extended is less intimidating.
|
| 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.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| No, you aren't the only one. It has become even worse now that
| Twitter will not render without JavaScript enabled.
| Unfortunately, I still do not know what Berkson's Paradox is
| because I will not enable JavaScript for Twitter.
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Okay, I googled it. A non-hostile site hosts a definition
| here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox
| junippor wrote:
| Thank you. Does anyone understand the difference between
| this and Simpson's paradox?
| kgwgk wrote:
| 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.
| junippor wrote:
| > 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 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.
| doubleunplussed wrote:
| Eh. There is intentional splitting into subgroups, and
| there is accidental selection bias. I think that's the
| difference.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-24 23:01 UTC)