tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post3730843985378722781..comments2023-05-29T06:33:43.786-07:00Comments on Thoughts on Science and Pseudoscience: Bigfoot Footprints: The Problem of the Distribution ShapeThe Other John Mchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-59229883120553828372013-06-10T10:00:13.004-07:002013-06-10T10:00:13.004-07:00Whatmakes you think you reaaluu know everythungWhatmakes you think you reaaluu know everythungAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-85047210831709999092013-05-10T15:59:32.761-07:002013-05-10T15:59:32.761-07:00No, there is no 14-16 group versus a 16-18 group, ...No, there is no 14-16 group versus a 16-18 group, that's the whole point I was making. There is apparently just one group, with one large unimodal peak in the data. Check out the definition of "bimodal distribution" versus unimodal, you should be better able to understand what I am getting at here. Thanks for reading.The Other John Mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-10943295875128624432013-05-08T17:10:27.672-07:002013-05-08T17:10:27.672-07:00Couldnt the 14-16 group be female (or male) and th...Couldnt the 14-16 group be female (or male) and the 16-18 group be male (female)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-80475200937255914532013-04-07T18:42:21.458-07:002013-04-07T18:42:21.458-07:00Dividing a population into subgroups based on age ...Dividing a population into subgroups based on age (adults, teens, children) is, I agree, an arbitrary distinction based on an underlying factor (age) that is itself a gradient, so that when taken in totality, would probably appear to be one large unimodal distribution. But dividing a population on gender is not arbitrary, as there are clear and distinct biological differences between males and females, with the size of their footprints being one obvious example. With a good-sized sample, as was apparently taken in this case, there should be a clear bimodal distribution reflecting different gender sizes. Gender size is not an arbitrary distinction. This is especially true for large primates, where the differences are bigger in comparison to "average" primates.The Other John Mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06648184479112487844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3457668362098152413.post-43683315430114830692013-04-06T08:57:29.700-07:002013-04-06T08:57:29.700-07:00Dividing a normal distribution into males and fema...Dividing a normal distribution into males and females and expecting different peaks is kind of arbitrary. Why not assert that the distribution should be tri-modal (adults, teenagers, and children)? Virtually every population consists of sub-groups that have different means, medians, and modes, but that doesn't stop the overall distribution of everyone combined from being roughly normal. There are huge IQ differences various occupations but the IQ distribution of Americans as a whole is normal. <br /><br />According to this pdf file, you only get a bimodal distribution if the difference between two sub-groups exceeds two standard deviations:<br /><br />http://www.biostat.jhsph.edu/bstcourse/bio751/papers/bimodalHeight.pdf<br /><br />Also keep in mind that sexual dimorphism typically is much less pronounced before adulthood, and especially before puberty, and so a bigfoot distribution that samples the entire population, not just the adults, would reveal smaller sex differences.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12852836443119152867noreply@blogger.com