[tweetmeme source=”lovestats” only_single=false]At the recent ARF audience measurement conference in New York, a couple of controversial statistical ideas were raised. Controversial in the sense that people reading my tweets couldn’t tell if I believed the idea or not.
1) The point was made that we should forget the 95% significance value and focus instead on 80%. I do agree that some people get so hung up on that 95% that they fail to see the forest for the trees. We need to understand the theory of statistics so that we know when it makes sense to go against them. As always, once you know why you’re breaking the rules, it’s ok to break them. I see 80% as a good theory building, hypothesis testing, do I bother to keep trying number. And then, 95% is a good confirmatory test. But with human discretion applied.
2) We focus a lot of our energies on trying to build the most accurate samples we possibly can, split by many demographics and complicated sampling strategies. But the problem is that we know we can never achieve that perfect sample. Ever. So let’s approach this from a different point of view. Acknowledge the flaws in a sample, and be wary of and smart abut the weaknesses they bring to the results. If you want to achieve new heights, curious outcomes, and innovation, simply press on. Innovation comes from taking risks. Working with a less than perfect sample just might create a situation for innovation.
I dare you.
Read these too