9 karma · joined February 22, 2014
1. Get empirical probability vote is within 2 million from previous N elections. (so, 1 if it is within 2 mill, and 0 of not, then average). Use it as p(vote is within 2 million). 2. Assume that if a vote is within 2 million, then the exact number of votes is uniform between 0 and 2 million. Then, the probability of a tie, given that the vote is within 2 million is p(vote within w million) / 2 million.
FTFY ;). I think Bayesian methods add a lot of interpretive power, but I'm not sure that it would help people make a correct interpretation. I suspect that if practitioners are neglecting the difference between a one-sided and two-sided test, they will likely forget (or gloss over) what priors are (and their non-trivial implementation).
I definitely agree that their is a disconnect between the math and its interpretation, though.
It's like reading an article on how to make money that doesn't even give you a ballpark estimate of how much money each strategy could make you.
The IRB only monitors study participants, not research assistant work.
I'd imagine he's saying that they want to assess general cognitive ability in ways traditional tests do not.