Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum

First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.

If someone tells me, his result *“was achieved through Microsoft Excel 2003’s summation function”*, which is more or less what Jennings & Waters do, I know, he has not understood simple addition. What they offer is junior high school stuff: Throwing a dice n times, what is the probability never to get a single six? Like not finding a rare tool in a small sample this too rapidly diminishes with sample size. Also where they state *“A p-value of .05 or less”*, “99.05 or more” is what they should have said given the equation they supply. Again, those *two* mistakes can and will happen but what about the second author, several referees and editor, are they all innumerate or fast asleep? Given all that, even claiming *“the principal of parsimony”* as a coauthor doesn’t help much. (scnr)

While Joel & Tarrasch’s criticism is relevant and valid for about 90 % of the psychological literature I see, it isn’t here. Where it comes to men and women even small differences in population averages tend to be important enough to make them compete in different leagues in sports.