Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Philip E. Tetlock
in that case, it's also "official" that the World Economic Forum needs a remedial course in Research Methods. Correlation doesn't "mean" causality--and that is even true for claims that are pitch perfect for corporate PR purposes.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
David Fisher 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PTetlock
It was not the lights that mattered.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mark Bennett 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @fisherdbus @PTetlock
“Hawthorne Effect”
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Eric Jardine 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PTetlock
Perhaps, too, healthy firms (whatever that means) produces happy employees...No one wants to work at a place that is unhealthy.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Steve Murray 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PTetlock
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
John Michael Kelly 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @NickNahat @PTetlock
It depends. An r of .31 means almost 10% of the variance can be explained by that one variable. Since I'd expect customer loyalty to be predicted by quite a few factors, I think that's actually a pretty sizable effect.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
David Fisher 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PTetlock
What was the name of the reseach in the 60s where by merely changing the lights production went up?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Mark Bennett 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PTetlock
Clickbait headline. Buried in the report is admission re: correlation/causality. One could also consider what “means” means 😃
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Brian Labatte 16. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @PTetlock @superforecaster
Man. I’d like to know more about the data; time period, country, firm, employee demographics, and on and on. And the methods to assemble it. And why was such a basic error missed or not challenge. Need a superforecaster course
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"