• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Romney Is Clearly Ahead In The Most Deterministic Metric

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Falvlun said:
Exactly. It's that pesky causation vs correlation thing. Blinking wasn't likely causing voters to vote one way or the other. Something else may have, or else it could just be a random correlation.
Click to expand...

I chalk it up to an "insufficient sample size" thing. They're trying to infer a trend from only 8 instances. As the article notes, when we also consider primaries, the trend gets a lot muddier.

I can see plausible reasons for a correlation between blinking rate and campaign success. I can't see plausible reasons for why this effect would be present in presidential campaigns but not in the primaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top