Just for shits and giggles, and because we are in the middle of mocks and I have lots of time on my hands, I averaged the Academic and Disciplinary support for schools in China and Egypt. My thinking is that for well behaved students this number would be higher than for poorly behaved students and I predicted before averaging that this number would be higher for the Chinese.
Sure enough, the average for China is 7.7 and for Egypt its 4.2.
What kind of data is this?
More importantly, would it be anti-Semitic to say Arab students are horrible compared to Chinese students?
Laziest Students in Asia?
Discussion
@Illiane_Blues
Like this "I am unable to reconcile your data with mine", its called a keyboard , it contains letters (a lot of letters and symbols) that I use to input text to post on this forum.
@interteach
Not all research is academic, much of it is proprietary, and its not published for peer review or for other purposes, and that research and data is just as valid as academically peer reviewed and publicly available research and data.
Anecdotal data doesnt need your permission, it doesnt need to be well documented, it just needs to be valid.
@Thames Pirate
I dont state my data as facts, merely that its data.
Anecdotal data doesnt need to technically be data by a stretch, its data. An argument can absolutely rely on an anecdotal data and anecdotes, arguments dont need your permission.
Its difficult to show causation with anecdotal data but lots of data, especially phenomenological studies (social science, psychology, sociology, economics, etc.) have a lot of problems with demonstrating causation for a large variety of research and data collection types. Causation is more common in fundamental studies (physics, chemistry, biology) where the lab offers a lot more control over extraneous variables.
No, thats not the fallacy thats happening here, the causal fallacy (post hoc ergo proctor hoc) states that event A does not cause effect B because of proximity of A to B, which is utterly immaterial here, your making a false premise fallacy. Your assumption (that is false is that causality is necessary and sufficient condition) that bridgs your premise (anecdotal data is weak) to erroneously support your conclusion that anecdotal data can not support a causality. Your essentially engaging in a ignoratio elenchi fallacy as your attempting to entwine causation with correlation, which has nothing to do with the premises of this argument, which in itself is another fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Anecdotes do not require demonstration of causality.
Well yes sampling statistics use n-1, but thats not true in population statistics where we just use N, which again same fallacy as above has nothing to do with anything. Lots of sampling techniques across a wide variety of data collection methods and data types use sampling perimeters of n-1. I would use it for a small group of anecdotal data, as small as 1 (though theres some issues of sample size), but I could also take a thermo meter to a lake stick it in the water and state the temperature of the whole lake is whatever the result of that one measurement is, I could take 30 or 300 thermo meters and get more data, but i could do the same thing with anecdotal data, I could take one narrative or I could take 30 or 300 narratives, the issue of sampling size is not a liability or asset to a specific date type. The thermo meter measurement suffers from the same issue of sampling in small numbers as anecdotal data would.
True anecdotal cant really be controlled, but your definition of research is extremely narrow, as described above, not all research needs to have a control group. Not all research is true experimental design where there is a control group, and a test group. There are a whole bunch of quasi and non experimental designs that produce high utility data based on statistical methods such as correlation. A lot of the research done in education is non-experimental research.
Anecdotal data can be representative.
Actual data? Anecdotal data is actual data.
Anecdotal data can have high sample/cell size.
Anecdotal data doesnt have to posses these criteria, most data doesnt posses all these qualities.
Anecdotal data is useful when it has utility either it represents the true value of some event or observation, describes the observation accurately, explains the phenomenon validly or predict future events reliably.
You can only use anecdotes to show anything, they are not restricted or limited by your standards.
Your perception of what constitutes valid data is an unrealistic and immature understanding of scientists in lab coats and laboratories, it works fine in fiction but doesnt represent the practice of science in reality.
The vastness of your position is basically statistical and research nonsense, you know as much about statistics and research as you do horses which is to say n-1 where n=1.
@SJ
"Saw what you did there", clairvoyant.... HaHa, LOL.
Like this "I am unable to reconcile your data with mine", its called a keyboard , it contains letters (a lot of letters and symbols) that I use to input text to post on this forum.
@interteach
Not all research is academic, much of it is proprietary, and its not published for peer review or for other purposes, and that research and data is just as valid as academically peer reviewed and publicly available research and data.
Anecdotal data doesnt need your permission, it doesnt need to be well documented, it just needs to be valid.
@Thames Pirate
I dont state my data as facts, merely that its data.
Anecdotal data doesnt need to technically be data by a stretch, its data. An argument can absolutely rely on an anecdotal data and anecdotes, arguments dont need your permission.
Its difficult to show causation with anecdotal data but lots of data, especially phenomenological studies (social science, psychology, sociology, economics, etc.) have a lot of problems with demonstrating causation for a large variety of research and data collection types. Causation is more common in fundamental studies (physics, chemistry, biology) where the lab offers a lot more control over extraneous variables.
No, thats not the fallacy thats happening here, the causal fallacy (post hoc ergo proctor hoc) states that event A does not cause effect B because of proximity of A to B, which is utterly immaterial here, your making a false premise fallacy. Your assumption (that is false is that causality is necessary and sufficient condition) that bridgs your premise (anecdotal data is weak) to erroneously support your conclusion that anecdotal data can not support a causality. Your essentially engaging in a ignoratio elenchi fallacy as your attempting to entwine causation with correlation, which has nothing to do with the premises of this argument, which in itself is another fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc). Anecdotes do not require demonstration of causality.
Well yes sampling statistics use n-1, but thats not true in population statistics where we just use N, which again same fallacy as above has nothing to do with anything. Lots of sampling techniques across a wide variety of data collection methods and data types use sampling perimeters of n-1. I would use it for a small group of anecdotal data, as small as 1 (though theres some issues of sample size), but I could also take a thermo meter to a lake stick it in the water and state the temperature of the whole lake is whatever the result of that one measurement is, I could take 30 or 300 thermo meters and get more data, but i could do the same thing with anecdotal data, I could take one narrative or I could take 30 or 300 narratives, the issue of sampling size is not a liability or asset to a specific date type. The thermo meter measurement suffers from the same issue of sampling in small numbers as anecdotal data would.
True anecdotal cant really be controlled, but your definition of research is extremely narrow, as described above, not all research needs to have a control group. Not all research is true experimental design where there is a control group, and a test group. There are a whole bunch of quasi and non experimental designs that produce high utility data based on statistical methods such as correlation. A lot of the research done in education is non-experimental research.
Anecdotal data can be representative.
Actual data? Anecdotal data is actual data.
Anecdotal data can have high sample/cell size.
Anecdotal data doesnt have to posses these criteria, most data doesnt posses all these qualities.
Anecdotal data is useful when it has utility either it represents the true value of some event or observation, describes the observation accurately, explains the phenomenon validly or predict future events reliably.
You can only use anecdotes to show anything, they are not restricted or limited by your standards.
Your perception of what constitutes valid data is an unrealistic and immature understanding of scientists in lab coats and laboratories, it works fine in fiction but doesnt represent the practice of science in reality.
The vastness of your position is basically statistical and research nonsense, you know as much about statistics and research as you do horses which is to say n-1 where n=1.
@SJ
"Saw what you did there", clairvoyant.... HaHa, LOL.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Laziest Students in Asia?
The key to self-importance: Say what others said using more words so you can feel smart and feel like you are putting others in their place even though they already pointed out the difference between anecdotes as data points and data sets.
Also, pretending that all research and data is equally valid so you can justify your rambling.
Also, pretending that all research and data is equally valid so you can justify your rambling.
Reply
@Thames Pirate
That might be true, another indicator of self importance is claiming the statements of others as your own, you just rambled about causality.
You didnt identify how anecdotes can differ between data points and data sets. Anecdotal data and anecdotes can be data points and data sets. You essentially just put words together.
I dont have to pretend, all research and data can be equally valid. Validity of data doesnt have degrees or intervals either data is valid or it isnt. Either the variable accounts for some true proportion of the observed variance or it doesnt. Validity has restrictions and limitations that effect utility but it terms of validity it either is or it isnt, its a state function, validity is not dependent on the pathway of determining it. Its discreet and categorical its not an ordinal or interval system.
That might be true, another indicator of self importance is claiming the statements of others as your own, you just rambled about causality.
You didnt identify how anecdotes can differ between data points and data sets. Anecdotal data and anecdotes can be data points and data sets. You essentially just put words together.
I dont have to pretend, all research and data can be equally valid. Validity of data doesnt have degrees or intervals either data is valid or it isnt. Either the variable accounts for some true proportion of the observed variance or it doesnt. Validity has restrictions and limitations that effect utility but it terms of validity it either is or it isnt, its a state function, validity is not dependent on the pathway of determining it. Its discreet and categorical its not an ordinal or interval system.
-
Thames Pirate
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:06 am
Re: Laziest Students in Asia?
Once again I rest my case.
-
Heliotrope
- Posts: 1168
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am
Re: Laziest Students in Asia?
No, she's not.