Asking a girl on a second date.

how is there a difference?

what the hell are you talking about?

how is there a difference?

what the hell are you talking about?

well at least you aren't a fucking idiot pretending to be hot shit like raven. Dude probably took 1 probability course and maybe 1 statistic course in college and dind't even pay attention or else he wouldn't have been so fucking stupid about this. Now he thinks hes hot shit. Seriously, what a retard.

False negative = P( test says negative | person is positive )
i.e. the odds the test fucks up and says negative when it should have said positive

False Positive = P( test says positive | person is negative )
i.e. the odds the test fucks up and says positive when it should have said negative

well at least you aren't a fucking idiot pretending to be hot shit like raven. Dude probably took 1 probability course and maybe 1 statistic course in college and dind't even pay attention or else he wouldn't have been so fucking stupid about this. Now he thinks hes hot shit. Seriously, what a retard.

False negative = P( test says negative | person is positive )
i.e. the odds the test fucks up and says negative when it should have said positive

False Positive = P( test says positive | person is negative )
i.e. the odds the test fucks up and says positive when it should have said negative

sure, but he didnt state that, he just stated it had a flat accuracy of 95% one way or the other. so the false neg and pos probabilities are the same (5%).

anyways if he/I are wrong ill just wait for someone to explain how :P

i never really took a prob/stat class in college, but i always considered probability and statistics to be common sense math for the most part :shrug:

ps - i used to work on safety analysis at boeing and worked with probabilities all the time. hope that makes you feel better!!!

Darkstrand joins the ranks of the retarded.

By the way, I minored in math.

PS This problem and the coin problem are both discussed in:

TED | Talks | Peter Donnelly: How juries are fooled by statistics (video) (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/67)

Go to 11:15.

Well What hes trying to say is

Probability of a positive test given they are mormon is equal to the probability that someone tests positive and is mormon divided by the probability that they are mormon.

it's totally ridiculous set up and hes just trying to cover his tracks at this point.

Darkstrand, backpedal harder, you have a ways to go.

Darkstrand, backpedal harder, you have a ways to go.

You're the total fucking idiot. Who fucked up his false positive/false negative rates not me.

But, it's cute that you're so proud of all the soft core math classes you had to take to minor in mathematics.

Uh, what are you talking about? What did I fuck up? :lol:

You are a fucking idiot. I bet you were one of those who said the airplane doesn't take off. Watch the video I posted.

Aww, another moron ran away with his tail between his legs.

Do you feel stupid Darkstrand?

Maybe he should get a smurf account.

depends on the number of mormons in the US.
this is right. it would have been more complete if i said it also depends on the sensitivity & specificity of the test (which are not defined simply by the accuracy of the test).

The answer is about 65%

If your test is 95% accurate, then the odds of a random American being a mormon are only 26% when the test says they are.

this is not true. your problem is that accuracy is the percentage of correct decisions, True Positives and True negatives. the remaining 5% is then the percentage of incorrect decisions. however, as darkstrand pointed out, incorrect decisions can be either false positives or false negatives.

you made the assumption that all the incorrect decisions were false positives, which in general is not true.

Aww, another moron ran away with his tail between his legs.

Do you feel stupid Darkstrand?

Uh, do I have to keep posting in this thread forever?

You're a fucking idiot as has been demonstrated conclusively in the last few pages. Shows over. And, no, I didn't post in the plane thread.

this is right. it would have been more complete if i said it also depends on the sensitivity & specificity of the test (which are not defined simply by the accuracy of the test).



this is not true. your problem is that accuracy is the percentage of correct decisions, True Positives and True negatives. the remaining 5% is then the percentage of incorrect decisions. however, as darkstrand pointed out, incorrect decisions can be either false positives or false negatives.

you made the assumption that all the incorrect decisions were false positives, which in general is not true.

When did I make any such assumption? I said that with 5% of the population, the test returns the incorrect result. What is so difficult to understand here?

False positive rate = false negative rate = 5%.

Don't propogate stupidity.

And watch the video I posted.

how on earth did this thread get here?

When did I make any such assumption? I said that with 5% of the population, the test returns the incorrect result. What is so difficult to understand here?

False positive rate = false negative rate = 5%.

Don't propogate stupidity.

And watch the video I posted.

Whoops. You were wrong, but I got the reason wrong. And you made the error very clear just now. You assumed FPR = FNR = 5%. There is no reason to assume that in general. You need to know more than just the accuracy to do this calculation.

The video was simply demonstrating the importance of prevalence rate (like I first mentioned) and glossed over this issue of sensitivity & specificity vs. accuracy.

If the test returns the wrong result at random over the entire population, then those rates are the same.

But yeah, attack well known statisticians now.

This is the same type of backpedaling we saw in the PoaT threads. "I didn't understand the clear question!"

how on earth did this thread get here?

It was so long ago I forget.

TI seems to think that if he posts enough, he'll be right.

This thread is fully of poorly-defined trick problems.

You seem to think that bandwagonning makes you less of an idiot. Whining about the problem being poorly defined is a common tactic used to backpedal in these forums, and you will learn this after you've been here a few years. Plenty of people were able to figure the problems out just fine. Don't be so frustrated over being stupid, most people are.

:rofl: Only on TW a thread about mormons turns into a statistics argument.