|
@jgschraiber | |||||
|
Can we all agree to stop saying "Type I" and "Type II" errors and just say "false positives" and "false negatives"?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Steven Weaver
@stvnwvr
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
Type I and Type II have only two syllables each. Makes sense to use if mentioning it several times a day.
|
||
|
||
|
|
Joshua G. Schraiber🌹
@jgschraiber
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
I don't feel like I've ever felt slowed down the extra syllables. Also avoids needless obfuscation so saves time that way
|
||
|
|
||
|
John Kennedy
@micefearboggis
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
Or even better(?): choose a form of words that fits the specific problem you are studying.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Joshua G. Schraiber🌹
@jgschraiber
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
what do you mean exactly?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Will Hulme
@wjchulme
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
generally agree, but there's an appealing neutrality to 'type I' and 'type II'. Not so for pos/neg - the context might confuse
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Joshua G. Schraiber🌹
@jgschraiber
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
interesting point
|
||
|
|
||
|
Andrew McAdam
@McAdam_lab
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
Why? I don't think I understand.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
Joshua G. Schraiber🌹
@jgschraiber
|
28. ruj 2016. |
|
I feel that the terms are unnecessarily obfuscating. We should say what we mean, not just use jargon for its own sake
|
||
|
|
||
|
Russell Neches
@ryneches
|
6. lis 2016. |
|
.@jgschraiber @trayc7 In my brain, stats are onomatopoeic :
false positive⇒splat
false negative⇒whiff
true positive⇒ding
true negative⇒honk
|
||
|
|
||