this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2025
398 points (84.1% liked)

Science Memes

16487 readers
2753 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 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?

[โ€“] tetris11@feddit.uk 4 points 5 days ago (1 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!

[โ€“] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] tetris11@feddit.uk 2 points 4 days ago

Oh I see, thanks