400
๐Ÿน๐Ÿน๐Ÿน (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago* by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
A vertical image shows a stock photo of archers with a series of black text boxes overlaid on it. The top text box, over a blurred background of greenery, reads: "In a study of 100 archery competitors, 50 of the top skilled archers were given a regular wooden bow to use in competition." The second text box, below the first, reads: "The 50 lowest skilled archers were given a wooden bow PLUS an extra coating of Vitamin C on the frame of the bow." The third text box is superimposed on an image of archers in a line, each holding a bow and aiming toward targets. The archers' faces are partially obscured, and the archer in the foreground is holding a wooden bow with a gloved hand. The text box reads: "This second group was told that they would receive more energy transdermally while gripping the bow coated in C." The fourth text box, at the bottom of the image, reads: "At the end of the event the second group performed far better than the first. This is known as the Plus C Bow Effect."
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

If the second group performed "far better" than the first group then this isn't regression to the mean, is it? I would expect the gap to be much less or even eliminated but for the Plus C Bow group to do much better there should be something else at play, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, plus the selection process was weird. Any gains attributed to the plus-C bow group just throws question to the initial rankings.

    They should have done a crossover trial, where group A is a random selection of archers initially getting no C bows, and then later getting them, and vice versa for group B. Paired t-tests, y'all!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, but the meme is a joke about how you can prove anything with regression to the mean. If all archers are equally good and we test them we would get varying results. If we then split them on performance and perform an intervention and test again then the "poor performing" group will do much better. Because it's just random noise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •