Something I spotted in RRR, also nowhere near the wandering monsters, that may come in handy for the next book. Spoiler: These chances decrease to 1% per hex or 5% per day spent exploring or camping in a claimed hex.
As far as my analysis, I thought I made clear that I looked through the lens of p-values on sample size and the failure to address limitations on a study of 38 drunks!You understand that p-values are influenced by sample size due to sample size's effect on standard error, right? A larger sample is more likely to find significance, distribution held static. The fact that they found significance with a sample size in the mid-30s indicates that their sample size was sufficient for that finding and that confidence interval. No it isn't. Run the samples multiple times, with higher and lower samples, of different ages, in different regions, control for others overhearing your questions, control for outliers ("yeah, screw private property, *belch*!"), and consider that drunk people can BE outliers (a serious limitation that is avoided in the articles stated limitations). That is, it is more than possible and reasonable that his results are useless in the study as written. All it shows is that 38 similar age drunk people resulted in an answer. No serious statistician would take this, and similar scholarly work, as more than sampling bias with appeals to authority attached at the end. One 38-person study finding significance isn't enough to base consensus on. Sure isn't. A body of similar studies all reaching similar conclusions using independent methods, however, is. If only such a body of research existed, and had been linked to recently in this thread! Awesome. Like I said, I have more that I could provide you to help you in this quest. And if I take those apart too, then, there are more, and more. Question: What were the issues you found with them? Any of them? Have you simply accepted them? They are, after all, peer-reviewed. Also, "They're drunks!" isn't exactly a damning criticism when the point of that study was to use alcohol as a means of disrupting thought. I mean, it would be more damning if they weren't inebriated! It is if you are attempting to classify the ideology of vast swaths of people from Earth by having 38 college kids from NE drink liquor until they are plowed (at unidentified levels) and then record their answers in order to reach a conclusion that aligns with the thesis. It is a particularly damning criticism. And, incidentally, the alcohol itself can affect each participant's mental functions differently, and by amount (a variable not known in the study)...ah, never mind.I went out of my way to present those studies in a way that didn't paint conservatives in a overtly negative way (though, let's be honest, those findings make that really tempting) because the point wasn't to make conservatives feel bad but rather to maybe give them a moment's pause to take a look at where they get their information from and who they choose to listen to. Actually, you went out of your way to find studies that attempted to prove that conservatives are easily manipulated by other, evil conservatives, and that the former love to be manipulated due to their differences in thinking, etc, etc. What you actually delivered was pretty silly, your conclusions transparently self-serving (you inferred from the above sources' banal--and dubious--conclusion to bolster your prior assertions). And then you suggested I look past my ideological bias, and finally, alas, lamented my failings. As proof of my failings, you noted that I disagreed with the findings, which Cannot Be. I will soldier on, however, despite my crippling faith-based dogma and scripture waving. As an aside, you didn't answer my questions. I've attempted to address yours as best I could. Could you go back and answer them, please? Start with: "Gay people want to turn our children gay." Who is more likely to latch onto that assertion, pro- or con-? Who would deploy it to bolster their 'side?' Who has deployed this sort of nonsense here? What would a Google search show? Would a sample size of the internet yield this 'conservative argument' as a typical SEO'd argument by conservatives to their easily-manipulated base, and their base repeating it?
'Paizout' claims that Amiri is a BINO (Barbarian in Name Only). She's got cafe curtains and track lighting in her yurt and knows the use of every fork in a placesetting.
Considering the number of images of Seoni everywhere and her appearance in a sizable number of the adventures, I believe she is asexual, reproducing via binary fission. There are thousands of her in Golarion. Mitosis is the only explanation. (mystery of the tattoos solved) |
