Hamilton will never!

[ShiftingGears]

I was referring to the monkey called squirrel.

Who was it that couldn't justify his opinion of fastest laps = fastest driver when given clearly contradictory evidence?


That's right, you.

But please, carry on with the insults.

[DezinerPaul]

Who was it that couldn't justify his opinion of fastest laps = fastest driver when given clearly contradictory evidence?


That's right, you.

But please, carry on with the insults.

Let me explain once again, just for you. For statistics to have ANY validity, they need to be used in their entirety, there is that simple enough for you?

[ShiftingGears]

Let me explain once again, just for you. For statistics to have ANY validity, they need to be used in their entirety, there is that simple enough for you?

Your explanation is simple but it is wrong.


To be valid there must be as many constants as possible, ideally over the largest time possible. That is why I used the McLaren teammates example. Because there are two teammates, in identical cars, in the same team. That means, we can see from their results whether the fastest lap is directly related to being fastest in the race.


If I want to try to figure out the link between smoking and cancer, I'd want to make the environmental factors as similar as possible, eg pollution levels, etc etc in my sample group of people.

If I have a sample size from the same area, with similar lifestyles, one group of smokers and one group of non-smokers, my results would be more VALID because there is an absolute minimum amount of factors influencing the result of cancer.

If I do the same survey, except have my non-smokers residing in Chernobyl, and my smokers residing in the pristine New Zealand, then my results are not going to be valid, because there are many more factors affecting my result than what I'm measuring.


Do I make myself clear, monkeyboy?

[janneppi]

good show all around.