Simpson's Paradox
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Thanks to brilliant.org/... for sponsoring this video!
This video is about Simpson's paradox, a statistical paradox and ecological fallacy where seemingly contradictory results are implied by a single set of data depending on how it's grouped. The paradox can arise in medical studies, student test scores, and so on.
Support MinutePhysics on Patreon! / minutephysics
Link to Patreon Supporters: www.minutephysi...
REFERENCES:
Interactive Simpson’s Paradox Explainer:
vudlab.com/simp...
Wisconsin vs Texas schools: educationnext.o...
Detailed analysis of Wisconsin vs Texas schools: iowahawk.typepa...
National US Standardized Test Data: nces.ed.gov/na...
MinutePhysics is on twitter - @minutephysics
And facebook - / minutephysics
And Google+ (does anyone use this any more?) - bit.ly/qzEwc6
Minute Physics provides an energetic and entertaining view of old and new problems in physics -- all in a minute!
Created by Henry Reich
Looks at Texas flag... "Yeah, I can draw that."
Looks at Wisconsin flag... "Umm... I'm just gonna draw their flag as a wedge of cheese on a blue field."
REALITY... FOR US... IS PROBABILISTIC... DETERMINISM IS NOT FOR US.
Wait, that's not the Wisconsin flag?
I think it says a lot about the US when it didn't even occur to me that it wasn't Wisconsin's real flag.
if you google Wisconsin flag, the picture of cheese with blue background actually came up on the fifth row of google images
I am glad I saw this comment because (ignorant of the fact that American states do eveen have their own flags) I thought it was Wisconsin flag:)
“more money makes you a cat”
the true American dream
technically stolen comment
Aristocat!
Wait, is that why americans are CATholics?
the Furries have entered the chat
A fat cat
If a cat loses enough money will it statistically turn into a human?
Yes.
geryon Yes, but I doubt they have enough money to loose to begin with, so I doubt they'll ever turn into humans. But, this makes me wonder why cats exist in the first place... Were they all humans at some point of time and lost all their money and got really poor and eventually turned into cats? After all those extremely poor homeless people on the streets do behave like cats to some extent already, living in trash, eating from trash cans... Omg! It's very likely they were humans before! Jeez!
Not realy human, more like turning into "The wolf of wall street"
LOLOLOL
it will lead to high cat suicide rates!
This was recommended to me because I've been watching clips from The Simpsons. Thanks RUclips
I don't believe you.
No one looks up clips from the Simpsons on YT.
@@russellfautheree4650 Hello, I am No one. It's nice to meet you :P
Saaaaame
Yeah I thought it would have something to do with the Simpson's!
Russell Fautheree I actually watched episodes
i thought this was a video on how the simpsons predicted the future or something but that’s how little i know about the word paradox
Paradox is when something that cannot be explained by the universe's physics. For example: If you time travel to the past and kill your father, then you wouldnt be born to time travel and kill your father. That's a paradox
ElTech0 XD cheers
Tristan Overholser I thought so too man
@@vrtris A paradox is just something that doesn't make sense
Paradox is also an unexpected answer to something.
I had a math teacher that told one once:
Statistics are very important to learn well in order to know they are useless. (His point was that if you dont understand statistics, you can be fooled more easily).
Thus he assumed you were too stupid to understand statistics
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
also
Numbers, when tortured, will confess to anything.
@@kraftrichter1599 He was my teacher, not the other way around.
Of course he assumed I was stupid.
Statistics are only useless when no detailed methods and assumptions are supplied and the results aren’t properly reported.
@@KP3droflxp That is a beautiful theory, just like communism: It does not work in practice.
Name me one statistical study that you know where these problems are not present.
If you put cats in boxes, you don't gotta worry about treating them. Problem solved. Schrodinger was way ahead of his time.
Paradox of paradoxes
just make sure the box's coin flip doesn't make the cats all die anyway
If you put a cat in a box with a poisoned pill, there's a very good chance that the cat won't take the pill.
Put a dog in a box with a poisoned pill, and you've got a dead dog.
@@geraldfrost4710 I didn't need to know this
@@ozmel146 what if you’re in a situation where someone forces you to pick between a cat and a dog of which you have to put in a box with a poisoned pill
"being a cat makes you happier"
so true
cant argue with that
The Commenter have you seen a cat? They have their own towers, they get fed every day, and they get to sleep whenever they like
Eat and sleep
More money makes you a cat
"more saddness makes you richer"
oh boy, where are my Infinite Euros
finally my depression would be useful
Gotta appreciate that Ramiel pfp
you are not sad enough. you need more desparation in your life.
Best angel
Euros 😂
"You can misinterpret this graph as saying more money makes you a cat"
I _died_
rip
@@Optimusskyler the ghost of this user appreciates your paying respects
So that’s why furries are rich
well yeah, do you know how much fursuits cost? it's ridiculous!
@@flameindigo8035 i once purchased vegan leather shoes, for 100 bucks, the moment i left the store i almost fell. The ground was wet and i literally fell at least once. But i donot want to make animals suffer for my convinience. Now i am in the Simpsons paradigm? I am so confused.😂
TLDW;
Having money makes you a cat
Alejo Storni somehow
It's science!
Whatever weirdo makes these videos, he needs to take a basic English Literature 101 class so he can come up with less idiotic analogies. The point of an analogy like the cat-money thing is to explain a complicated abstract concept with a much more simple abstract concept. He did the reverse. He tried to explain a complicated abstract concept with a ludicrous and incomprehensible abstract concept.
Bot having money makes you a black cat
Triumvirate888 Or maybe you just didnt get it. I think it was fairly simple. But then again, so are you.
More money makes you a cat and you can’t change my mind
Steven Crowder in a nutshell
I can if I give you money. Then you'll have a cat brain.
Also: Checkmate, atheists. Evolution's not real. God just creates different species by paying them. God is loaded.
I have no money. I am not a cat. Ipso facto, hic ergo sum, transit sic gloria.
@@jeffallen55 I didn't know Gloria was sick!
Suspiciously wealthy furries 🤔
More doughnuts makes Homer happy, which makes him fatter, which makes him sad, which makes him eat more doughnuts. Poor Homer is only poor and fat, neither happy nor sad.
I thought it was the fact that even though Bart is only ten years old he's been bullied by Nelson for nearly 28 years.
no tv and beer make homer go crazy
Now I want donuts
Doh!
No TV no beer make Homer, something something...
Simpson's Paradox isn't about how Homer manages to be alive after all that he has inflicted upon himself?
I tough that was a video about the simpsons
Maaaaarge
Remember the clones of himself from the halloween episode? Oh wait they don't have the belly button nvm
i thought the simpsons paradox was how the show can be on for 29 years and yet bart is still only 10.
I don't really see how that's a true paradox... maybe he's just super tough.
"More money makes you a cat." This is the best thing. Period.
"if your a cat, you have more money and more happiness"
well, that explains catgirls
Your favorite Haunter :nya intensifies:
Furries
Your favorite Haunter *you're
@@overlordcringe2715 so what
@@Pizzanator-gp2bb q
"...and cats are both poorer and happier than people..."
Yup...
Yup.
Not wrong
3:14 what that actually works
my uncle once got like reaaaaally rich and he now is a cat so the implication is true
See what u did there
he is now*
also that's called a "gootraxian"
Ok ... but where is Homer?
Springfield
I choose to believe that more money turns you into a cat.
maybe im just stupid, and i am, I assure you. BUT! it seems like these paradoxs only exists because the data is being incorrectly displayed.
None of the data were "stated incorrectly", it's just that you need context and human input for the data to make sense.
I dont know, the one about being richer would turn you into a cat seems like it was stated incorrectly. The proper way would be to have two lines, one for humans and one for cats. Lumping groups together that have differing variables seems like in it self a fault.
I see it as the three ring magic trick, It only seems like magic if you cover up the break in the rings with your hand and not show it to people. Its no more magic than this is a paradox just because you choose to hide information that would prove otherwise.
The problem is that in most cases subsets are not as rigidly defined and easily identifiable as these examples, and the issue of how to group/ divide them itself injects a subjective aspect into the data. The decision about which variables can or cannot be 'lumped together' is one of the issues (along with identifying potential causal effects from mere correlative data) this paradox is based upon.
Unfortunately the nature of statistics makes it more and more useless smaller the groups under study are; but fortunately breaks in resulting data lines can show where previously unidentified significant variables occur. This is why science isn't just a one-study-and-we're-done project.
@@BoojumFed is exactly correct. The issue is actually even more generic than this because the number of groups overall can be manipulated to tell very different stories.
It gives political pundits the option of finding the story that they want to tell buried in the data.
"More money makes you a cat"
Man, I wish I was rich right meow!
[Edit]
Wow over 600 upvotes? It wasn't even that funny or well-thought out. I didn't even get my capitalization correct!?
well, thank you, people. It still feels good to be one of the top commenters.
Someone won the lottery
Lol. I didn’t see that coming. You made my day better. Thank you.
The term fat cats makes much more sense with this in mind
mrrrow? Nyot to rain on nyur parade, but I may be turning into a cat, yet I have nyo wealth to speak of.
Meow...
Err...
Fucking furries.
The first one isn't a paradox, it's just that you changed the amount of check marks when switching between the untreated and treated, all the boxes should have 4 check marks
Exactly my thoughts
@@pragmaticduck1772 agree
The first example is actually pretty easy to solve or “correct”
The cats treated should be counted as 4 out of 4 instead of 1 out of 1
The people that are not treated should be counted as 4 out of 4 instead of 1 out of 1
Here we are calculating probability and death rates so we should calculate them as fractions or decimals instead of plain numbers
Yeah, it seemed so stupid to me; I don't see why he didn't simply give the same explanation as you!
or... maybe you just treat the people and not the cats both win and we good
Thats a simple explanation for a problem that can be much more complicated in real-world statistics. He used cats and people to differentiate the groups. Now try it with men and women, asian and white European, people with blue or brown eyes, or even more subtle distinctions in the population that might be FAR from obvious (people who eat nuts versus people who don't eat nuts - unless you're actually looking for it, you might not even know which question to ask of the sample). He used a crude example to make the point - sometimes its almost impossible to know what differentiates two populations in the sample, so its easy to reach misleading conclusions without knowing the correction (interpretation) is necessary.
why would you count 4 cats if you only observed 1 cat. that would totally screw with confidence interval
@@benstallone6784 I interpreted it as having a control group. But I don't know what he truly meant by it.
"More money makes you a cat" -minutephysics 2017
that may be what goes on this youtube channel's tombstone after this fiasco lol
"after careful analysis the statistics tell us we're biased and even hint at where those biases are or aren't coming into play know the paradox is that we've remained so reluctant to fight our biases even when they're put in plain sight."
So after explaining how there can seem to be bias but in fact be down to personal choice of the individual (what college course they chose) your conclusion is "we've remained so reluctant to fight our biases even when they're put in plain sight."
Autism Is Unstoppable
You seem to be blaming individual choices while refusing to look for the causes for such choices.
People have free will. There are always going to be more people of a specific group doing a specific thing because people are not the same. For example most nurses are women but most IT engineers are men, this is likely because women have more caring tendencies (because of children) and men have a more logic focused brain.
So that deparments that women prefer are undefunded is someone not a institutional bias?
Monthphysics
Hello fellow planet.
The Earth wrong, this video is not a month long, it's only minutes long
yes but there is only one physics a month
The Earth Fresh air whats next? The rain?
i wish these vids were a month long
Why do I find this just now?
I had to spend the entirety of 2018 without knowing that more money makes you a cat.
A really cool video about a really interesting topic 👍
The gerrymandering of statistics
Wow! That is actually really accurate.
2:12 The comment section is going to be fun.
Or scary!
They see me rollin' you got that far?
the comment section is hatin
To be fair, blacks in Texas are smarter cause, texas.
yeah i didnt know the flag was cheese.
The first paradox isn’t paradoxical, you just drew conclusions incorrectly. When you aggregated the first graph to get the second graph, you added checks and crosses even though the boxes didn’t have the same number of people in them. That would be like finding the mean of fractions without the same denominator. 1/1 combined with 1/4 doesn’t equal 2/5, it equals 5/8.
In fact, this whole video just seems like you are drawing conclusions without enough data or drawing them incorrectly.
That's the whole point of the video! The examples with cats and humans are meant to make it obvious that you can't just add together members of different groups. But the problem is that everyone is unique, so there are no clearly defined groups of people. In a real experiment it's not always obvious which factors are important, and you can also get incorrect results from splitting groups that should be counted together.
What if the groups were something trivial like eye color? If a treatment heals 1/1 brown eyed person but kills 99/99 blue eyed people, do you think we should treat the groups separately and conclude it works 50% of the time?
Reddles37 that example does make more sense. So basically the point of the video is that mistakes are made in statistics and they are supposed to be more complicated than in the videos? That just seems like something i assumed, but that might be because I have taken stats courses before.
3:14 you could also make the mistake of assuming a gang of cats is about to fight a gang of humans on a street.
I CANT STOP LAUGHING
Be intellectually honest and activate the comments on the video in which people were rightly pointing out how you simply assumed things regarding gender differences (them being purely social in nature) in order to say that there must be a problem on society overall despite the study showing no sign of bias on the admission process.
Very disappointing, that sort of behavior is part of the cause for why people fail to have honest discussion on sensitive subjects, it's the definition of regression.
Drunken Hobo
You're not supposed to think about leftism, you're supposed to listen and believe.
He simply said that because there was no bias overall in the admission process, then the gender roles in society by definiton is what causes the apparent bias. That is the truth. However, whether or not this societal bias is a "problem" that needs "solved" shouldn't really be a discussion on minute physics. This is in the realm of politics and opinion.
Andrew Whiteman it really doesn't need to be solved, people apply to subjects they like and that shouldn't be changed by quotas etc. Also, as far as I know, women aren't driven out of STEM by men.
Andrew Whiteman If he's making any kind of extrapolation of the data and giving his opinion in the video, I don't think you can fairly argue that the discussion "doesn't belong on a minutephysics video." To me, it looks like unnecessary censorship, and while it's obviously no legal offense, it still greatly degrades the respect I have for the people behind the channel. It's one thing to express your potentially inflammatory opinion, it's another entirely to hide from the flames.
Since your comments on the sequel to this video are disabled I'll leave my question here: Why should all careers have an equal distribution of different people groups? Is it some sort of unquestionable moral obligation? If anything homogony and equal distribution of careers aren't healthy since demand for different jobs and the backgrounds for specific careers vary widely. Trying to force a child of a specific gender, race or socioeconomic background into a career path towards or against a trend won't help that person at all. They'll probably end up hating their parents or teachers for forcing them into a career they don't enjoy. Just let people go where they feel like and stop dreaming about the perfect distribution of jobs and university majors. Maybe what you call "bias" prior to finding a career or college is just what people find comfortable or find matches their existing interests, is that really a bad thing?
Valuing equal results instead of equal opportunities is always oppressive. Shame they seem to think they're the same thing, as per them saying as much in their second video.
Biases aren't necessarily a BAD thing. There IS a bias for women to pick certain fields and males to pick other fields, and it's undeserved to some point, but it's also very understandable too - more women would pick English to STEM, and that's not a bad thing. The point of the video was that that aiming for a 50%/50% rate actually favours a group because of the stats being misrepresented, and valuing equal results doesn't work when you don't understand the stats and assume the bias is where it's not.
And while it's wrong to force your female child to go for a STEM degree because feminism, if your child actually wants to become an engineer it's equally wrong to force them into a shitty art degree.
I don't understand why all the incels and gaters rage, given if anything the video shows that feminist equity theories don't work because they're predicated on flawed interpretations. Get laid already dumbasses.
Well, we already know employer biases exist. As an example, there were studies where resumes were left unchanged except the name being changed from a white-typical name to a black-typical name, resulting in lower acceptance rates for the same credentials. In the absence of any political goal, profit-motivated companies would try to use some method to avoid this bias since they otherwise would be passing up good employees for bad reasons, and losing low hanging fruit to their competitors.
I believe I've heard of this study before, however, you must call into question what classifies something as a "black/white-typical" name as that in and of itself is a racial stereotype. Also, I'm curious what the metrics would be, what companies they consulted and other factors. Wouldn't the researchers have an obligation to reveal racial biases to companies being tested themselves if not the public? I'm curious if you have a link to it so I can take a look.
Another aspect you have to consider is job-culture fit. Some companies, though they might like the employee and they have all the right credentials, might not like or mesh well with other workers regardless of their background. And even beyond that sometimes people don't work well with coworkers they can't relate with. Anyway, my point being that while diversity of a workforce is important, it's more important that a team works well together and that its members are competent enough for their roles. At least that's what investors look for in smaller, startup companies. They don't care as much about the estimates as they do about how solid the team is and what they've already achieved.
Yeah I don't understand. The first half of that video shows that women are actually given more oportunity than men per individual department (revealing that this is indeed a case of simpson paradox), only to later assert that women have less opportunity than men (!!!)
Thank You for this succinct explanation. This is kind of what has been plaguing us during Pandemic times where people, without breaking down the statistics are reacting to Vaccine data and using arguments against it. This helps us arm ourselves to look beyond the face-value of numbers and diver deeper into all of the confounding factors that make them up. Cheers.
"using arguments against it" - No. They're *defending* themselves with any logical evidence they can think of because they don't want to be personally forced or coerced into a medical procedure.
"this helps us arm ourselves" - Another artifact of an *offensive* mentality.
You've been engaged with an "us and them" mentality and instilled with a vaguely threatened sense of your own mortality. Any fan of history knows what comes next.
@@glitchdigger Gotta love your absolute confidence in psychoanalyzing a complete stranger on the internet based on a couple words. Get real, fool. You're looking for things that aren't there.
bruh 💀
Cov. Vaccines weaken your immunity, thanks, statistics.
Last week I went to a lecture that talked about how statistical data can be misleading in how if 0.1% of vaccinated people die of COVID and 1% of unvaccinated people die of COVID but 95% of people are vaccinated then it'll look like 60% of COVID deaths are from people who are vaccinated and will then be misinterpreted to mean that the vaccine is harmful when it isnt
Why are the comments disabled on part 2?
Gadiel Nathan Arriesgado - he deviated from the physics and began sharing his political views, of which enough people disagreed with.
This reminds me of a similar problem in my physics class. I had a 89% in the class(calculated from a weighted average of my test grades and classwork grades)
There would be one more grade before the end of the quarter, and it was a test. I wanted an A, so I figured I'd have to make a 90 or above to bring up the average. However, I made a 87 or so and it brought my overall grade up to 91 or so, because it brought up the average test score.
I thought this would be a good real world example because adding a lower average to a set brought the overall up
how could it bring up the average if the average is 89
@l1mbo69 It's because it's still greater than my test average. For example, imagine if my test grade is weighted to be 50% of my grade and homework the other 50%. Say I made a 40% on my first test and a perfect 100% on my hw. Then my grade is 70, a C. The next test rolls around and I get a 60%, which is lower than my overall grade. Now my test average increased to 50%, increasing my grade to 75, C+.
@@natejack2292 i fr just somehow completely skipped the classwork part
RIP Snowball 1
This comment!!
Thats not a paradox, I prefer to call it bad experimental design
If the data actually came from an interventional study or something then yeah, it would be indicative of bad design. But the paradox can also apply to data from other sources as well.
I think that it is less bad experimental design and more bad statistical analysis. After all, the data can still be good, but if you use it incorrectly or leave out some details, then you get a problem. Of course, bad experimental design can influence what data you get in the first place so it's not completely innocent either.
So, there are true paradoxes which poke holes in the universes and then there are apparent paradoxes which seem like they poke holes in the universe until you take a closer look. People rarely talk about the former.
As general rule in biostatistics, you should not include in your pool of subjects different species because even in the same specie you have a lot of variability. And it is a bad experimental design because part of the experimental design consist in selecting your group subjects.
@@DrKappaDelta sometimes it can be helpful to look at multiple species in an experiment if you want to know how something affects different species, all you need to do is to keep the data separate between the species when analyzing the data.
More money means you can live like a cat!
Eat and sleep all the time!
By that rationale less money means it's harder to eat regularly or find somewhere to sleep safely, which might actually lead to less happiness.
I knew it. Bill Gates is a cat.
a very smart cat!
A copycat !
#IllumikittyConfirmed
Simpson's paradox: beer is both the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
Why have you turned off comments for part 2?
Well you wouldn't want anyone fighting any biases around here now would we, minutephysics?
the comments made a better argument than the video and that scared him
Tip of the day :
Just be a cat, cat is always happy.
Nice video, i learned something. Apparently my room is painted in a shade of "socioeconomically advantaged", wasn't aware that was the name of the colour.
My main take away from this video is that non-white people are poor and stupid. I don't agree with that, but the video implies it.
Minutep- talks about the point of the video
VSauce-first 2 minutes/talks about the point of the video
Rest 18 minutes/talks about assassination of JFK
I've heard this concept several times, and this is the first I actually understand it now. Thank you!
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
-Mark Twain
So... who else saw the thumbnail and the title thought that this was going to be about how The Simpsons make so many episodes with unique events that eventually some of theme come to be real?
not sure if i can stay subscribed to a channel that doesn't allow discussion, a real shame tbh
why would you stay sub'd to a science channel that doesn't believe in science?
i feel almost the same but i would be ok with an apology and just
*STICKING TO PHYSICS, MINUTEPHYSICS* ffs
If the best comment is aroudn "Oh we commenters dared to criticize holy cow of feminism, how could we?", who would not turn off comments?
"More money makes you a cat."
This is why the world needs to work exactly how MinutePhysics says it does.
I think to illustrate the paradox better, you should have first described it as Group A and Group B, then later revealed that one was cats while the other was humans.
0:51 ok but the top right and bottom left ✓'s and X's are representing 25% of the population, while the top left and bottom right represent 100%.
So really, shouldn't it be 5/8 survival rate with the medicine, and 3/8 without the medicine?
I was going to say exactly this. So the medicine is effective.
i dont mind becoming a cat. as long as i have money and happy
Kuroji so you like being dumb with no brain
DankMan Cats have brains and they're pretty smart. So what you said is pretty damn ignorant.
i dont mind behig rich and happy as long as i can be a cat
Say "DankMan".... lmao
what if you can only be a depressed rich cat :(
I think the example is wrong, you joined 100% cats alive as 1 and 25% humans as 1 out of 4, and that's not how maths works, you should represent 100% cats as 4 out of 4, getting as a result that 5/8 of the pacients are alive with treatment and only 3/8 if not treated.
That's the point. The danger lies where you don't know the distinction between "cats" and "humans" exists, so you lump them all together and end up with "Treatment is Bad."
@@heftig0 Then it's not a paradox, right? Maybe I'm just stupid and that's what the whole video was about
@@ide8876 The "paradox" in this problem isn't a classical paradox like the grandfather paradox. This type of paradox, I think so at least, would be a "Falsidical Paradox" while something like the grandfather paradox would be classified as a antinomy paradox.
Basically, there are multiple definitions to paradox and a paradox isn't always something that can't be solved. Just a problem that looks impossible to solve. The paradox here is that the information contradicts itself when viewed from different angles, IE looks impossible to get a proper conclusion.
If you want to know more about paradoxes, I believe one of the Vsauce channels has a video on them.
I watched this video to see if it was a video about the statistic likelihood of The Simpsons, which has ran basically about a billion episodes, thus presented the world with about 50 billion unlikely scenarios, being able to "predict the future" simply through huge volume of outlandish scenarios.
I'm a fan of your videos but I do not like that you disabled comments on part 2.
Yeah, i wonder why he wouldn't want people being able to directly respond to his leftist propaganda
SunnyFysh
what kind of non-
fan would care enough to comment?
I think the part two completely forgot biological average differences between men and women.
For example on average men are more interested in things and women are more interested in people. This might be the reason why women don't choose engineering, even if there was no discrimination.
Oh Christ, now looking into apparent and more or less real biases is "leftist propaganda".
The_Blazer Men and women tend to go into different fields. This is a statistically known fact. However, his insinuation of biases is propaganda that only wants to achieve a certain end and thus knowingly omits pertinent information regarding the topic. Especially as he masqueraded it around in what was a well done video, that used appropriate statistics. Perverting them to be a causal relationship.
Henry, please don't put text on the screen for 10 frames. It's frustrating to get the video to pause in that time.
Period and comma keys help. ;)
"More money equals more sadness" biggest lie
True... people return to their baseline level of happiness which is largely genetically determined.
+Duncan Coulter
That is disputed - it all comes down to if you you're wealthy enough to pursue things that will continue to keep you more happy
i think you misunderstood! More money equals more CATNESS!!! 🐱
which is completely true by the way...
I think that's just a reference to the "Money can't buy happiness" idiom.
"More money makes you a cat."
I finally have my reason to exploit the working class.
And the comments are disabled in part two, sad, cause I wanted to have a discussion on the controversial subject of university admissions with people of different political beliefs.
Me too. And usually the comments can get fiery, but always stay polite (except the 0.1% trolls you get everywhere).
More like 0.1% of polite comments and 99.9% of trolls.
Because everybody who disagrees with you is a troll.
Agreed. Would have been nice to have a debate with some people. Even if they disagree.
And banter is nice. He should grow a thicker skin and re-open the comments.
not because everyone disagreeing is a troll but because this is the internet where the majority are either A. quite rude for a polite but fiery debate or B. complete trolls. And let's not forget that there are also people who agree with you but use bullshit arguments. An example:
I was in a debate once about the problems of islamic refugees in germany (yeah, I live in germany). Basically it was me and some other guy versus the whole rest (a wonder it stayed polite). While I tried to make the argument that it's basically impossible to distinguish a peaceful muslim with a terrorist and that the religion in itself isn't "peaceful" at all, everything my partner talked was how "german culture" and "german values" were endangered by it (basically what every idiot would argue).
Guess which arguments were debated and which were dodged by doing so.
(also, don't trust edited comments)
"More money makes you a cat"
Got it. I am smarter now. I shall spread this news far and wide.
The only Simpsons paradox is how it's still going when it stopped being funny after Season 9.
I love how you make even complicated concepts and info easy to digest and understand!
Could you do a video on 'a*b*sorption vs a*d*sorption? I'd love to see your take on it, because most other sources give raw data/info without clear examples or fun cat analogies!
Anyway, thanks for making these videos and sharing knowledge in a fun way! I've been a fan and viewer for 5 years or so by now, and hope that you continue for many years to come!
"Minute" "Physics"
Karolis haha. Well put
Karolis "science"
The real Simpson's Paradox is this: "Beer is the cause of and solution to all of life's problems."
I forget in which episode it was shown (it may have been the vast majority of them), but this is a proven fact.
"more money makes you a cat"
sounds right to me tho?
"More socioeconomically advantaged students"
It's upon hearing that that I'm beginning to strongly question the validity of everything I see on this channel.
Context is everything.
If I find a dead cat on the road, what killed it? Car. Truck. Heat Exhaustion.
If I find a dead cat in the kitchen, what killed it? The chef.
Context. The difference between roadkill and a meal.
Minutephysics why did you remove your comments in your latest video?
Graztriton maybe people there didn't agree enough with his politi- i mean physics...
lmao graztriton, and here i thought string theory was controvers-i mean bullshit
P3rformula exactly and isn't science supposed to be politically free unless in political science and in examples
lol the answer to your question is right here in the comments. he doesn't want to have to deal with derogatory behaviour
Because he is biased.
"Socio-economically advantaged". smooth...?
Thomas Divelbiss He meant white
I want more money so I become a cat
I was looking for videos on the Simpsons TV show, and this is not what I was looking for.
But this was a great informational video, nonetheless.
These are not the Simpsons you are looking for.
@@michaelcarter2851 Doh !
3:11 makes me want to start an online journal using statistics to screw with people a la the Onion, and also publicly enlighten people on the dangers of statistics.
I thought that's the whole point of Nutrition Science.
On the sequel:
"Comments disabled because discourse failed to remain civil." While I certainly don't doubt that, it's not like this video is any better. Having never had a chance to see any of the "uncivil" comments in question, I cannot help be err on the side of bias: Because "civil" now means "completely unpolitical if not blindly agreeing with me" to those that tend to claim they are speaking in the name of science, I can guarantee that the comments being insulting or disruptive was not the problem.
Now for the actual video: You say there's no bias in university admissions, that it's an illusion caused by misinterpreted statistical data on top of the fact that there is simply a lower acceptance rate in majors that women tend to choose. Then, you cap the video off by saying people willfully ignore this bias...which you just said doesn't exist? Maybe you were talking about the biases that were possibly influencing the lower acceptance rate for women, all of which based on appealing to a particular gender in different ways, but that doesn't make any sense because it's ultimately completely out of the university's control. Based on the individual statistics of each career, women face no obstacles that men don't, arguably even fewer when taking into account gendered scholarships, so the only variable influencing the acceptance rate of that university is the _women's_ decisions. There is nothing the university can possibly do to make them even out without being even _more_ sexist than they look.
Indeed. The only way they can combat apparent sexism is through willful sexism. Which is of course your right to have as an opinion, but most people would support that.
This is a human fault, not a political one. Look how angry Trump gets when anyone doesn't agree with him.
Besides, if people are really that fired up, what point is there in attacking people in a comment section?
While I think he should have left it and just left people to attack each other, as they all deserve it, including you, there are better ways you can spend your energy.
I didn't attack anyone, though? Unless you mean me talking about how this video isn't any better, which I meant in terms of the civility of the comments, and I never said this was something exclusive to any one side, just that it was suspect to block comments on the first video and not on this one.
I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the people in the comment section of that video, who you want to fight with.
"You say there's no bias in university admissions, that it's an illusion caused by misinterpreted statistical data on top of the fact that there is simply a lower acceptance rate in majors that women tend to choose. Then, you cap the video off by saying people willfully ignore this bias...which you just said doesn't exist?"
The bias he says people willfully ignore is the bias men and women show towards applying to different departments. "bias comes into play long before the admission process" you can see this subtitled at the 3:00 mark.
He is not saying that universities should counter-bias towards women during the admissions process.
Universities can and do attempt to even out the biases. for example physics and engineering departmentss can do targeted outreach to women to make them feel more comfortable and welcome in these departments and thus more likely to apply.
It's not a paradox, it's subjectivism vs objectivism. (Laziness vs actually gathering all the data on every conceivable variable)
I clicked on this thinking it was going to be about the Simpsons
In the first example, the issue is there are more cats shown in the untreated portion and more people in the treated portion. If we assume 4 cats and 4 people are treated, then option A has a score of 5 while option B has a score of 3.
You can't just count the cases together like that... For 100% of the humans or cats dying/surviving you make one dot, while you write 4 in the other cases. You're doing freshman addition of fractions, my friend
weeelll that's why this isn't "minutemath" lol
Thought this was about the Simpsons... The TV show :(
@Simon Dewitt The more it gets renewed the worst it gets. So many paradoxes...
glad I wasn't the only one
You eat 2 ice-cream's, and I eat 0... STATISTIC'S say we both eat 1 !!!
This was a great video! I started watching it because I thought you meant "The Simpsons" paradox (Homer, Bart, Lisa, etc) - which I have to think would be pretty awesome, but that was very interesting too!
“More money makes you a cat”
This is the strongest endorsement of capitalism I’ve ever heard
If the difference is socioeconomic, why are you drawing charts based on race?
I think you answered your own question there genius
Well, I know you are but what am I? See, I can add important points to this thread just like you.
Best thread to date.
+Jack Sparham Don't forget the cultural differences between poor black people and poor white people. Poor black people are more likely to be discouraged from getting a good education.
because agenda.
It may not be the same thing, but this reminded me of people who say that Danes, and Scandinavians in general, are the happiest people on earth. It turns out that one of the main reasons they are happy is because they have very low expectations. They don't expect to live lives of luxury just because they work harder than their neighbors. They don't expect to get very far ahead or behind their neighbors. They don't expect life to improve dramatically in one generation. There is also a high level of trust between people. In 2012, 89.6% of the population was Danish. They're happy, but they're happy in a way that recent retirees in a nice rest home are happy.
Looks like minutephysics might have to do a segment on whether "free will" is an illusion.
it is, but only if you're female.
oh no a joke ur so toxic omfg triggered
oh no a joke ur so toxic omfg triggered
Isolate your variables, kids.
0:10 - with the sample sizes of 1/4 cats and 4/1 humans, the P value is so outrageous that this is not statistics at all, but all error.
There is no paradox, just bad data. Garbage in, garbage out. Bad example.
I love that you include cats in your example! making it more fun and easier to understand
I chose to study computer networking, and my sister chose to study a teaching degree in English. I am good at ICT and Maths. She is brilliant at English, but hopeless at maths. We received the same upbringing, in the same house, within a year of each other at the same schools with almost always the same teachers. 90% of my English teachers were women. 80% of my maths teachers were men. Now if you ignore the "fact" that this information shows men are more discriminated against in English than women are in maths, surely this implies something else? Maybe the possibility men are just a little better at maths and women are just a little better at English? But no, it's obviously all about the patriarchy. Just because you said something blatantly ridiculous doesn't mean you get the right to save face by removing comments.
Yep. 93% of the US prison population are men. It isn't because men have a genetic disposition to commit crimes at a higher rate than women or anything. It is the matriarchy that is oppressing men and getting women out of prison, obviously.
that is too small of a data pool to make any concrete. it is the same as saying it is cold where I live therefore global warming is not real. in my experience majority of my math teachers were women.
You brought a sample size of 2 into a statistics discussion? Pretty poor attempt at feigning any relevant skill.
The conclusion in 0:50 is completly ridiculous.
100% doesnt mean you save 1 out of 1.
You either gave the treatment only to one person and therefore made a completly invalid study, or you made a horrible mistake
100% could also mean you saved 100 out of 100.
Summing up absolute numbers and getting the ratio only works on this specific scenario, not anywhere else.
This is like comparing a basketball team with one footballer to a football team with one basketballer
He literally said that he reduced the numbers to make things easier. If it bothers you that much then just multiply everything by 100 or 1,000 or something, the conclusion remains the same.
Shouldn’t it it be 4 ticks for 100% cats survive with treatment so 62.5% total for treatment and 52.5% total for no treatment?
I thought about the same thing. You can't only do 1 tick on one side if you use 4 ticks on the other side and combine them. It's like saying 1 + 1/4 = 2/5. Like no wth
I noticed that too. Should be 62.5% for treatment and 37.5% for none. That's almost double the survival rate. I think the point of a "paradox" like this is to illustrate the dangers of misrepresenting a problem, just like that algebra trick that shows 1=2; there's always a problem somewhere. A real paradox is hard to find or construct. "This statement is false." "Does the set of all sets contain itself?" Those are good ones.
I won the lotto recently. In completely unrelated news, I've started coughing up hairballs. My doctor has no idea why.
Isn't this just gerrymandering?
Pretty much, yeah. You have to be careful though, because subdividing groups up too much can also be a problem.
For example, what if the groups were something trivial like eye color? If a treatment heals 1/1 brown eyed person but kills 99/99 blue eyed people, we don't want to average them separately and conclude it works 50% of the time!
It would imply that Wisconsin is heavily segregated.
..Which it is.
"figures don't lie but liars can figure" - my grandmother, sometime before now.
I thought this video would be about how the Simpsons' universe has changed over time while the characters have remained the same.
Why is the dislike ratio so high and comments disabled for part 2?
Because Henry is such a special little snowflake that he couldn't handle the amount of people calling out his liberal-biased.
Because the second part of the video is refuted by the first part of the video and when it was pointed out, he panicked.
I'd just like to mention that the sister video to this one entitled "Are University Admissions Biased" has over 19,000 dislikes as of this post. RUclips just recently deleted the dislike function, so I'm letting people know. I would leave this comment on the other video, but minutephysics is so unable to deal with the criticism that he's disabled comments on that video. Shameful.
Things I learned from this video....
1. Cats are richer than humans.
Guys, we're really onto something here.
The first example, even through you said its a paradox, can be solved simply by taking an equal number of examinees:
Without treatment:
3/4 cats survive ---> 75% survival
0/4 people survive ---> 0% survival
Overall 3/8 survivors ---> 37.5% survival
With treatment:
4/4 cats survive ---> 100% survival
3/4 humans survive-> 75% survival
Overall 7/8 survivors ---> 87.5% survival
Undoubtedly an improvement!
No paradox!
That's the point of the video.
You've managed to watch the entire video, and completely miss the point. Good job.