>Britbongs will defend this

File: Get_it_together_psych.png (118KB, 776x1030px)

118KB, 776x1030px

>>9068985
>>9069040
>Social """"scientists"""" are innumerate
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

>>9069083
What were the questions that they asked?

File: The_questionnaire.jpg (319KB, 928x706px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 928x706px

>>9069166

>>9069197
In all fairness, as a engineering student that took statistics last spring, I couldn't tell you the answer off the top of my head either. If I were to study it for 20 minutes I'm sure I'd get it right but it's not something I keep in the back of my head at all times. With most classes that have tricky material like that it's easy to forget it.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-28-10-50-57.png (171KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 720x1280px

also,
>p-values are so commonly misused that there's actually a fucking Wikipedia article on the matter

pretty unfair to make that the topic of the questionnaire IMO.

>>9069234
>pretty unfair
No, understanding p-values is fundamental to psychological experiments. The fact that 100% of students and 80% of [math] methodology [/math] instructors got it wrong is both damming and worrying.

>>9069259
the vast majority of psychologists don't do experiments and thus have no need to know about the p-value. I'm sure it's the same for a methodologist. The p-value is not as fundamental to psychologists as the integral is to physicists.

>>9069265
Are you for real? So you think it's perfectly fine that the people teaching how to design, conduct and analysis psychology experiments apparently don't understand what a p-value shows them? Fuck off retard.

>>9069223
These are the basics of statistics, it's not tricky in the slightest if you understood it
>engineering student
figures

>>9068985
I read a study once that Brits don't prepare, they rather face the problem head on.

It could explain why they have been such a successful nation.

File: fucking please.png (240KB, 928x706px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 928x706px

>>9069197
Just did this. Hopefully the answers are posted somewhere in this thread, my pride will be severely wounded if I've not aced this.

>>9069339
Having looked at the answers, all I can really say is that Q5 caught me out. The question essentially asks "if you have rejected the null hypothesis, do you know the probability that the null hypothesis is true?", I confused this with a Type I error, i.e. the probability of rejecting a true null hypothesis. I don't know how ashamed I should feel about that, I can't tell if I've fallen victim to a genuine gap in my knowledge or to a clever wording trick.

I'm in STEM and I dropped out of my maths course in high school twice.

My degree did require the qualification though so I just applied for a subject with less demanding entry requirements and then switched in my second year.

>>9069352
Here's a better way of putting it, question 5 asks if you know P(H0 is true | H0 rejected) when in reality all you really know is P(reject H0 | H0 is true). I'm happy to write this off as a really clever wording trick, but I suppose that I won't know the truth until /sci/ tells me it.

>>9069197
why is it that psychologists assume people know their statistical methods instead of scientific ones?

>>9069197
All false

>>9069273
nice strawman. did you vote for hillary too?

>>9069280
it's pretty basic but I will never use it so i didn't put any time into actually learning it. also, like I said, if I brush up on it I'd understand it in 20 minutes.

>>9069454
>Trump voter
>no understanding of statistics
What a surprise.

>>9069394
Correct!