Probability question: There is a slight disagreement on /po

File: file.png (519KB, 966x655px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 966x655px

This is the image the person in the OP image was replying to on twitter by the way

>>8578866
That my be the autism rate for the entire population, but this woman could be a genetic carrier, meaning she has a much higher probability of having an autistic child.

>>8578866
>>8578871
Nevertheless she's probably bullshitting or misdiagnosing her kids, seems everyone is on the spectrum these days.

>If the occurrence rate of autism is 1.1 percent
that sounds like the population level incidence rate, which isn't relevant here

>>8578866
>arse/tesco
Of course it's a fucking brit

>>8578872
Or she did a number of shitting things in her pregnancy - which is what I am trying to say.

Obviously there is something going on here, assuming she is telling the truth, that makes her cunt spit out spacker kids, so to prove how unlikely it is that it is just by chance, I am trying to put a number like "1 in x" chance of it happening if it was just chance. All I am trying to figure out is x

>>8578882
0.011^4 for having four autistic kids in a row.

>>8578891
>0.011^4
Thank you very much

>>8578866
did you really make an entire post about a basic probability problem

>>8578916
at least it wasn't another MHP thread

>>8578866
an entire thread in pol cannot compute a 3rd grade question?

>>8578966
You seem surprised

>>8578866
>Both if she only has 4 children or if she has more.
Then we have to know how likely she is to have a given number of children. If she only has four, the probability is 0.0000014641%. You'd have to have 66 kids for the chances to be greater than 1%. But that's assuming that everyone has the same chance. If this woman had four autistic kids, she probably has something wrong with her that makes her much more likely to have autistic children. Hence trying to analyze this just from the information you've given us is pointless.

>>8579272
>You'd have to have 66 kids for the chances to be greater than 1%
Just to clarify, by that I mean the chances of having at least four autistic children, not exactly four.

>>8578882
>Or she did a number of shitting things in her pregnancy - which is what I am trying to say.
Why jump to assume the worst in people? Did she say something that triggered you?

File: 300k.jpg (45KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x427px

>>8578993
kek

>>8578871
Holy fuck, that's truly an awesome meme and as someone with actual clincially diagnosed Asperger's syndrome, I find it hilarious. So, can you normies stop being offended on our behalf? Thanks.

>>8578891

This is actually more likely wrong than not. The true probability depends on whether events of the same mother giving birth to multiple autistic children are independent.

If they're independent, what this anon says is incorrect. If they're not independent, then the probability of this woman having four autistic children may well itself be near 1.1 percent.

>>8579294

if they're independent, what this anon says is correct*****

>>8578866
>>8578871
>implying Brexit will ever happen
Stay classy, /pol/.

>>8578874
>>8578882
someone on one of the /pol/ threads lurked her Twitter and said her kids aren't autistic, they all have fetal alcohol syndrome induced learning disabilities

File: le confused man.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>>8578871
>original poster all but explicitly says "hey I made this to troll people"
>better tell everyone how mad it made me

>>8579294
The question was
>If the occurrence rate of autism is 1.1 percent, according to autism.org.uk, then what is the chance of having 4 autistic children?
>Both if she only has 4 children or if she has more.

>>8579313
someone on one of the /pol/ threads is probably the owner of that account and just baiting

1.46 percent for the general population, but results can differ for the individual woman herself (or whichever man is impregnating her) if the kind of autism these kids have is legit, not misdiagnosed and is genetic, and she and/or the dad are carriers.

Now go back to /pol/ and don't come back here. Your kind aren't welcome here.

>>8578866
FAULTY PRIORS

lrn2bayes

>>8579332
Whoops meant 0.00000146 percent forgot a my zeroes.

>>8579320
Yeah and that question can't be answered with the given informationunless you assume that children from the save mother are independent events. They aren't.

This reminds me of that British doctor who went around telling people that mothers murdered their children because he assumed dead children were independent.

>>8579294
read
>>8578882

The assumption is that they're independent. Even if so, the third one definitely should've sent a signal.

>>8578866
If she's telling the truth, there must've been either two sets of twins, one set of triplets, or a set of quadruplets involved. These raise the chances, though not significantly enough for it to be very plausible.