Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
That was a really painful article to read since it appears the author doesn't actually understand the study they're reading. Reading down, it turns out they completely butchered their interpretation of R values and had to be corrected by fellow Slate staff.
Also...
Quote:
|
How did the students do with these photos? They scored an R value of 0.22—again, significantly better than chance, though not by much.
|
... which is it? If it's
significantly better than chance, then how can it be 'not by much'? *slams head into desk*