Sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
This "reverse causality" has porn viewing "causing" the Obama vote whereas the original has Obama vote "causing" porn viewing. Instead of the loaded term, "causing," this web site tongue-in-cheek says | This "reverse causality" has porn viewing "causing" the Obama vote whereas the original has Obama vote "causing" porn viewing. Instead of the loaded term, "causing," this web site tongue-in-cheek says | ||
<blockquote> | |||
Porn pageviews explain 16 percent of the variance in state level presidential vote shares. Each per capita pageview is associated with a two-tenths of a percentage point increase in a state's Democratic vote share, and this is statistically significant at the p≤.01 level. | Porn pageviews explain 16 percent of the variance in state level presidential vote shares. Each per capita pageview is associated with a two-tenths of a percentage point increase in a state's Democratic vote share, and this is statistically significant at the p≤.01 level. | ||
</blockquote? | |||
Revision as of 14:03, 10 June 2014
Reproducibility
When studies are wrong: A coda
by George Johnson, New York Times, 7 March 2014
Submitted by Bill Peterson
More on Kansas
The following web site reversed the axes and its regression line is correct:
http://www.mischiefsoffaction.com/2014/04/are-democrats-pervs-some-problems-with.html
so we obtain the following graph
This "reverse causality" has porn viewing "causing" the Obama vote whereas the original has Obama vote "causing" porn viewing. Instead of the loaded term, "causing," this web site tongue-in-cheek says
Porn pageviews explain 16 percent of the variance in state level presidential vote shares. Each per capita pageview is associated with a two-tenths of a percentage point increase in a state's Democratic vote share, and this is statistically significant at the p≤.01 level. </blockquote?