Results 71 to 75 of 162
Thread: The Fakery Index (warning: Math)
April 4th, 2013 09:52 PM #71
Last edited by renrose; April 4th, 2013 at 09:56 PM.~Boys~
Jory Leander Atticus, August Eli Benedict, Casimir Mordecai Stewart,
Edmond John Meirion, Horatio Ethell Emery, Bram William Jasper,
Julian Remy Charles, Vasiliy Lochlan Michael.
Aira Rose ___, Eleni Fiorella Charlotte, Sylvia Sayuri Noor,
Merit Eleanora Adelaide, Clover Elodie Seraphine, Bridie Scarlett Viola,
Marguerite Cecilia Iris, Eilidh Clara Valentine.
Beta read The Self Invention: 21 a go-go.
April 4th, 2013 10:07 PM #73
April 4th, 2013 10:08 PM #75Senior Member
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
Although I don't feel smart enough or knowledgeable enough (even remotely!) to post in this thread, I'm going to risk it because you all have always been nothing but nice to me.
I am shocked that there are so many fake postings on here that it brought you to this!! (Though, I have to say, it is very impressive investigative work (and math!), blade!) I am so naive!!! Honestly, it never even occurred to me that people would post fake baby names in the announcements section. That's just stupid and mean. Do you know if those are somehow removed when they make the lists of names from the announcements?
Trolls, or fakers, I have always assumed are doing it because they enjoy watching us scurry to reply and discuss a scenario they have created and that only they know is fake. That drives me crazy, but I am terrible at spotting them because my instinct is to just believe people. It definitely makes me mad. And I'm wondering how it happens that these people get outed -- is it in the thread; does someone confront them there? Or is their thread just shut down? I just hate to think I'm putting so much thought into helping other people when they're not real, but at the same time, I don't want to start doubting everyone. UGH! Just the fact that they are making me doubt people makes me so angry.
April 4th, 2013 10:10 PM #77
April 4th, 2013 10:13 PM #79
Wow, very interesting. Thanks for sharing, Blade!
For any other math people out there (and to answer your question, Blade), I decided to run a few independent samples t-tests, grouping data from before the fourth quarter of 2012 (so, 1/12, 2/12, and 3/12) and after (4/12 &1/13). Using Blade's calculations, I analyzed whether there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of girls to boys, proportion of multiples to singletons, excess girls (observed/predicted), and excess twins (observed/predicted). I didn't really expect to find much since our sample size is so small, but there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of excess girls (t(3)=-5.45, p<.05)!!! Specifically there was a smaller proportion of observed/expected girls in and after the fourth quarter of 2012 (M=1.30, SD=.02) than before (M=1.44, SD=.03). So...good work team sleuths!! Maybe as our sample size grows we'll find more statistical differences!!
I was also wondering whether there is a difference in the prevalence of multiples based on socioeconomic status (SES)? I'm thinking that those with higher SES might be more likely to use fertility medication which, as stated in the original post, lead to higher rates of multiple births...right? I can also imagine that the mean SES of nameberry members is a bit higher than US national average as well. If these two assumptions are correct, it may not be fair to compare nameberry to the general US population (which is where we're getting our stat of 3.31% twins). Of course, my assumptions could be incorrect and this would have no baring on the excess report of female births.
Last edited by raptreverie; April 4th, 2013 at 10:15 PM.