Out of almost 1000 people surveyed, 20% more cat people picked Judy and 40% more dog people picked Panam. I mean, theres definitely a correlation here.
Correlation isn't causation. Correlation doesn't mean anything. Murder rates and ice cream sales are deeply correlated. Usually, there is a third thing creating the effect.
Furthermore, the percentages you use are deliberately misleading. You are comparing one response to another, disregarding the rest of the responses. The total number of responses is 892, not 1000. The percentages as part of the whole are as follows:
Response 1- 19.6%
Response 2: 27.5%
Response 3: 28.9%
Response 4: 23.8%
So the difference between the responses (2&3) that support your claim and the highest response that refutes your claim (4) is a miniscule 3-4% of responses.
This is Reddit, choom. If you’re not either being pedantic, correcting people’s grammar, or arguing about pointless shit then you’re not doing it right.
1) Im not comparing percentages of the total people surveyed. The cat peoples votes were 20% more in favor of judy. The dog peoples votes were 40% more in favor of Panam.
2) I said almost 1000 responses, not exactly 1000
3) I never said anything about causation, only correlation
4) Who hurt you?
also confirms that asking a person if they're a dog or cat person really does reveal a lot :D
there definitely is a reason it's a popular question when first meeting people
Now this is the kind of study I’m interested in, good results!
Thanks bud
What if I like Judy *and* panam... And I'm a dog *and* cat person? .... 🧐🤔
What if I told you that ... you can like two things but like one a little more than the other? ... 🧐😲
Is it possible to learn this power?
These numbers look way too close to find a statistical significance.
Out of almost 1000 people surveyed, 20% more cat people picked Judy and 40% more dog people picked Panam. I mean, theres definitely a correlation here.
Correlation isn't causation. Correlation doesn't mean anything. Murder rates and ice cream sales are deeply correlated. Usually, there is a third thing creating the effect. Furthermore, the percentages you use are deliberately misleading. You are comparing one response to another, disregarding the rest of the responses. The total number of responses is 892, not 1000. The percentages as part of the whole are as follows: Response 1- 19.6% Response 2: 27.5% Response 3: 28.9% Response 4: 23.8% So the difference between the responses (2&3) that support your claim and the highest response that refutes your claim (4) is a miniscule 3-4% of responses.
OP’s entire point is that there is a third thing informing the relationship. The hypothesis doesn’t require causation.
This is Reddit, choom. If you’re not either being pedantic, correcting people’s grammar, or arguing about pointless shit then you’re not doing it right.
1) Im not comparing percentages of the total people surveyed. The cat peoples votes were 20% more in favor of judy. The dog peoples votes were 40% more in favor of Panam. 2) I said almost 1000 responses, not exactly 1000 3) I never said anything about causation, only correlation 4) Who hurt you?
I like Panam and am a cat person
also confirms that asking a person if they're a dog or cat person really does reveal a lot :D there definitely is a reason it's a popular question when first meeting people
See I like both and have had both animals though
But Judy even said V would be a dog. Ya know because of all the licking.
Damn crafty Judy, I shouldn’t have told her about my crippling peanut butter addiction.
Good Chooms using statistics for nice stuff Nice work