According to 7:20 the experts will be influenced by bottle type and the novice are not influenced. This is exactly the opposite of what you said in the end.
Thank you very much. Being an Audio visual learner it is hard to get learnable content on statistics from traditional education systems. But this series just clicks. Thank you Adriene and CrashCourse team especially huge shoutout to Thought Cafe ✌️
Always great courses and straight to the point. I think there is a little mistake on 11:12 where No med should be on the left and Med should me on the right to put in evidence the differential effect of the drug on different patients.
Overall a really helpfull and nice series, thanks for puuting so much effort in the vids. But please check your axel labels, they're pretty messed up. there were expertes and novices confused and med and no med.
I'm just going to be pedantic here, but in almost all cases both groups of people have a gene Y, it might be the allele that is different. Notable exceptions are the few genes on the Y-chromosome, such as the SRY gene (which you'll find more often in biological males) and genes delivered by retrovirusses (which would often be somatic and usually not germline).
If groups presented in the video (like "parents", "ethnisity", "job title") are called by her as "intersectional", it makes me wonder, what is a non-intersectional group? "There is not *always* a single box, we can put someone into". So, this implies, that sometimes there is. I wonder, when is it when we can put someone in a single box?
Any particular group is in general intersectional, but two specific groups can be non-intersectional with each other. For example the group of even integers and the group of odd integers are non-intersectional. Even though every element is also in the group "integer" and THAT group intersects with both groups, "even" and "odd" don't intersect with each other. I hope that makes sense.
@@aNytmare yes, it did, thanks. So, its a property of two groups, wherether they intersect. However its a bit different with some examples on the video. For example, they tested oil on two groups, regular ppl and "experts", and it wasnt implied anywhere that they intersect. Or with the allergy, a group with and without a specific gene. No intersection, either
So what works for determining outcomes for olive oil also works for determining outcomes for people? I think the assumption that we can generate useful models for the very complex, just because we can do it for the simple cases, is pure hubris.
Subscribe to Prager University and watch Ben Shapiro explain Intersectionality for more info! (for the people into political intersectionality, which this video kinda isnt about )
The problem becomes when people try to calculate oppression through intersectionality. 1) This forces this constant victim mentality on people, which is actually very weakening. 2) Just like in economics, no one can actually calculate anything. 3) The general public is just going to use it for psudo-mathmatical reasons for being racists. 4)That's because always viewing people by their skin color rather than by their merits is very racist and divides us. We need to start having these open yet painful discussions, or things will only get worse.
@@dorje9580 You would be right few years ago, but this is exactly what is happening at the moment. Do you seriously not understand that statistics are used in sociology and how it links the two? Because they do, it's obvious.
11:08 Shouldn't No Med be on the left and Med be on the right i this graph?
According to 7:20 the experts will be influenced by bottle type and the novice are not influenced. This is exactly the opposite of what you said in the end.
Thank you very much. Being an Audio visual learner it is hard to get learnable content on statistics from traditional education systems. But this series just clicks. Thank you Adriene and CrashCourse team especially huge shoutout to Thought Cafe ✌️
Always great courses and straight to the point. I think there is a little mistake on 11:12 where No med should be on the left and Med should me on the right to put in evidence the differential effect of the drug on different patients.
Yes, I agree
Joe Ah, You are right
That was really bothering me. It didn't make sense.
Seems to me someone messed the labels on 11:23
Yeeesh I’m an idiot - I occasionally forget my prime directive and casually, almost inadvertently, scroll down to look at the comments...
LOVE this series
@cyotee How does an ANOVA push progressive politics?
Great Episode, I love the explanation and examples! DFTBQA!
Is the olive oil sum of squares plot backwards? the novice has no difference between groups shown but expert does
2:50 df for color should be 3 right? Just like manufacturer
*All these Chads and Stacys at the Chad and Stacy Institute.*
My favorite statistics documentary series is PBS ANOVA
I'm questioning how one of the experts rated a fancy olive oil bottle -10 at 7:00
11:37 I stumbled over that sentence a few times :|
Overall a really helpfull and nice series, thanks for puuting so much effort in the vids. But please check your axel labels, they're pretty messed up. there were expertes and novices confused and med and no med.
At 3:00, what does SS mean for color and manufacturer and how are they calculated?
I think I've got this. To compute SScolor, sum squares of differences of means of each color (4 in total) and grand mean.
Yo did she say it's filmed in the Chad and Stacy studio
Treeflower MOVE incel!
She says that in every video...you’d have to be living under a rock to miss the obvious
*She has to be a troll.*
I'm just going to be pedantic here, but in almost all cases both groups of people have a gene Y, it might be the allele that is different. Notable exceptions are the few genes on the Y-chromosome, such as the SRY gene (which you'll find more often in biological males) and genes delivered by retrovirusses (which would often be somatic and usually not germline).
Excellent.
Is a two-way ANOVA a type of factorial ANOVA or is it something different?
I have done very well in math class my entire life but I honestly do not use it in my healthcare job today.
@@FlamingBasketballClub Critical thinking and skepticism should be a course.
If groups presented in the video (like "parents", "ethnisity", "job title") are called by her as "intersectional", it makes me wonder, what is a non-intersectional group?
"There is not *always* a single box, we can put someone into". So, this implies, that sometimes there is. I wonder, when is it when we can put someone in a single box?
Never. Take sociology or anthropology instead of taking economics
Any particular group is in general intersectional, but two specific groups can be non-intersectional with each other. For example the group of even integers and the group of odd integers are non-intersectional. Even though every element is also in the group "integer" and THAT group intersects with both groups, "even" and "odd" don't intersect with each other. I hope that makes sense.
@@aNytmare yes, it did, thanks. So, its a property of two groups, wherether they intersect. However its a bit different with some examples on the video. For example, they tested oil on two groups, regular ppl and "experts", and it wasnt implied anywhere that they intersect. Or with the allergy, a group with and without a specific gene. No intersection, either
Why don't you make crash course Mathematics?
do gr8 \^-^/
So what works for determining outcomes for olive oil also works for determining outcomes for people? I think the assumption that we can generate useful models for the very complex, just because we can do it for the simple cases, is pure hubris.
We don't use ANOVA tables for human subjects.
Why would you want bright orange car?
Give me near-UV color, that's where it's add. It's the best color, even though our pathetic eyes cannot see it.
I almost got angry
🐺
Kool
Yeet
Why yeet?
Subscribe to Prager University and watch Ben Shapiro explain Intersectionality for more info! (for the people into political intersectionality, which this video kinda isnt about )
The problem becomes when people try to calculate oppression through intersectionality.
1) This forces this constant victim mentality on people, which is actually very weakening.
2) Just like in economics, no one can actually calculate anything.
3) The general public is just going to use it for psudo-mathmatical reasons for being racists.
4)That's because always viewing people by their skin color rather than by their merits is very racist and divides us.
We need to start having these open yet painful discussions, or things will only get worse.
No sociologist calculates that...This is statistics.....go to the CC Sociology section......you seem lost and dumb.
@@dorje9580 You would be right few years ago, but this is exactly what is happening at the moment.
Do you seriously not understand that statistics are used in sociology and how it links the two? Because they do, it's obvious.
G.G. You mean health and economic disparities? Most of them are obvious imo....
@@dorje9580 No, I mean intersectionality.
So Progressive!
First
Yeet