Hacker News Reader

Comment by raverbashing | Hacker News Reader

"I found the use of the evolutionary theory problematic. This is a highly contested theory and the authors did not strongly justify their decision to use it, nor attend to some of the major flaws of the theory."

Oh FFS

But nothing outside what's "common" in academia (and I mean the other reviews as well)

View on HN

I sometimes can't tell if people are joking or stupid. The following quote, for example, has to be a joke:

"The reported mean of 7.7 is misleading because it appears that close to half of your participants are scoring below that mean"

It would be weird if it was exactly half. Mean isn't median after all.

but it's "close to half"

I can easily imagine that coming up in the social sciences.

I dont get why this is a joke. My guess is the paper probably reported the mean as having some significance in the context of how participants scored, and the professor is pointing out that this is misleading. In other words, they should have not reported the mean but the median.

It's funny because it's stating the obvious.

Yes, arithmetic means are inherently misleading and everyone knows that. They summarize a quantity of information and conceal its important attributes like variance and skew.

The 7.7 figure was probably not being used to deliberately mislead.

The complainer hadn't in fact fact mislead; they had access to other data from the paper on which to base the complaint.

Basically it boils down to "you shouldn't have summarized such and such data using an arithmetic mean because I don't like means; whenever someone uses a mean, they are trying to deceive".

If "close to half" scored below the mean, then the mean and median are probably very close together.

I think the charitable interpretation would be that some conclusion in the paper hinges on the value of the mean, but that conclusion is not valid when you consider that values are more widely distributed, and the reviewer just stated it poorly.

This would be expected in a very Normal distribution, but there are some skewed statistical distributions where you would not expect that to be the case. For example, if you're doing an analysis of the following data:

1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 98, 1000000, 1000000 then the mean would be 2,004,851 / 100 = 20048.51. In that case, 98% of your sample points fall below the mean.

Right, but apparently this distribution is not particularly skewed, since close to half of the values are below the median. And since distributions where the mean and median line up are common and expected, it's really weird to say that the mean is misleading because of that. I suspect/hope the reviewer meant to say that the use of the mean is misleading because the lower values somehow don't support whatever conclusion was reached.

That's most likely, and I agree that it's likely in the case mentioned that the data is not skewed. However, the main reason I posted is because the post I was responding to appeared to make the assumption that nearly half of the data points will always be below the mean, and I was pointing out that there are some distributions where you should not expect that to be the case because they are skewed.

I made no such assumption. Why would you even assume that I expect this to always be the case? As already pointed out, it's pretty easy to make an assumption about this specific example since we're told that close to half of the values are below the median.

It did remind me of this Dilbert cartoon: http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-04-18

"It has come to my attention that 40% of your sick days are on Fridays and Mondays. This is unacceptable."

"Ha ha ha! That's a good one. ... Please tell me he was kidding?"

"Welcome to hell, kid."

Do you know the medical doctor who published a mathematical method (named after herself) to compute the area under a curve? Truly revolutionary! https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-research...

I laugh so hard reading the blog. Thanks for the good laugh.

The spirit of charity led to me to notice that if the reviewer is referring to some very specific element of it that might be clear in the context of the paper, it could make sense. If, for instance, "the evolutionary theory" in question is "group selection" [1], the statement actually makes perfect sense. Stops being funny, of course.

A number of the reviews might actually make a lot more sense in context. But that still leaves a number of them that there is simply no context that makes them make sense.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

When you read a review like that, you can only imagine the journal editor having an almost unconscious faceplam reaction before removing the name from the pool of potential reviewers.

Could be a psychology paper.

well in that case, somebody rejecting something is a sign of improvement..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com