Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from Covid-19

Re:Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from Covi... by julianlam on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @09:23AM (#24847590)

I also used to find this disturbing, but the way I have explained this to myself is --

Insignificant < 25% Not insignificant 25-50% Not significant 50-75% Significant > 75%

Of course for each individual situation the numbers vary, and I use them simply to demonstrate that it's a matter of degrees, and not as binary as you may expect a typical "not" to be.

It is the only double negative I have come to find useful.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from Covi... by bbarnett on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @10:00AM (#24847944)

I agree with the 'binary' here, but also add "not bracketed".

For me, I see:

Insignificant < 25% Not insignificant 25%-? Significant > ~75%

With:

Not Significant < Significant

But of course, that's almost certainly a colloquialism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from Covi... by shellac on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @10:16AM (#24848082)

> that's almost certainly a colloquialism.

Probably, although sometimes these become terms of art, i.e. words or phrases with quite a specific meaning in a particular field. (Think of the people who hear 'significant' as '< 5% under null hypothesis', ironically not what Fisher intended)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from Covi... by bbarnett on Wednesday October 21, 2020 @04:48PM (#24852023)

Good additional ; agreed!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from Covi... by dempseye on Thursday October 22, 2020 @03:40AM (#24855752)

I don't find it disturbing. I think your interpretation is close enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]