Are Decimal Points As Significant In Population Dynamics....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the significance of statistical claims regarding population dynamics, particularly in relation to pattern recognition abilities. A participant claims to be in the top 0.003% of the population based on a psychological evaluation, which raises questions about the validity of such a claim without substantial empirical evidence. The conversation highlights the need for rigorous statistical analysis and the challenges in confirming extraordinary claims, especially in the context of psychological assessments. Participants emphasize that claims of being in the top percentiles require extensive studies to be credible.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic statistics and probability theory
  • Familiarity with psychological evaluation methodologies
  • Knowledge of population sampling techniques
  • Awareness of the significance of statistical significance in research
NEXT STEPS
  • Research statistical significance and confidence intervals in psychological studies
  • Explore methodologies for conducting population-based psychological assessments
  • Learn about the history and evolution of psychological testing in clinical settings
  • Investigate the implications of extraordinary claims in scientific discourse
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for psychologists, statisticians, researchers in behavioral sciences, and anyone interested in understanding the complexities of population dynamics and the validity of psychological assessments.

BigDon
Messages
74
Reaction score
97
TL;DR
Population Dynamics
As they are in engineering and manufacturing?

I ask because during a very deep, post stroke marbles census in came to light that I had an extraordinarily high level of pattern recognition such that the department head said I was in the top .003 percent of the population.

I ran the numbers later and I came up with over 21 million people on Earth just like me. Doesn't seem all that special after that.

What am I not considering or looking at correctly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
3e-5 * 7e9 = 210000, not 21000000

Simple math ... :smile:

##\ ##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BigDon
Hey, I was only off by a few orders of magnitude! That's the same as a near miss in some circles.

But thank you. :smile: o:)

And simple is relative to the observer I might add. (Einstein just never got around to quantifying it.)
 
For what it's worth, I doubt almost any properties of humans have actually been studied to a degree where you can actually say you are in the top 0.003%

That would require a study of about 1/.00003=33,000 people.

The phase 3 pfizer trial for their Covid vaccine was about that large, and that was one of the largest drug trials ever. Even then if you get nobody in that trial who exceeds you, you could be only in the top 0.006% and get that result by chance with a pretty high chance. At best you can probably feel confident saying you're in the top 0.01 or 0.015%.

Top 0.003% for human height and weight, sounds plausible. But top 0.003% in pattern recognition sounds like a completely untested claim to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara and BvU
Take your complaint up with the Psychology dept. at Ft. Miley Medical Center.

I'm merely parroting what somebody more experienced in the matter than you or I told me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK
BigDon said:
I'm merely parroting what somebody more experienced in the matter than you or I told me.
Hard for us to confirm that the anonymous person you talked to at Ft. Miley is more knowledgeable in statistics matters than @Office_Shredder.
 
Well, let's hand walk through this.

(Oh, and I'm not mad or offended btw. As I'm not part of the "everybody gets a trophy" generation it takes more than nice people disagreeing with me to make me mad.)

The VA/UCSF systems has been doing psych evals since as least the early 40's. So they have experience with combat vets from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc.

So right there is easily your 30 odd thousand needed for your numbers to work. This was the head of the entire psych department who first had his star pupil test me, she got up and got the department head after I did so well

She re-administered the test with him watching, scored too high again and then HE administered the test.

I did better each time until I squeaked up into the madcrazy skills range.

That's all I got for you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
BvU, my mean younger brother, who works for NASA/Ames and is the lead on no less than eight data centers says you were way too nice and a more appropriate reply would have been;

"What, *maff* hard for you?"

(For my friends in foreign climes that's a common mispronunciation by young children in America.)

He uses that a lot of Facebook where necessary
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K