lembeh Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 >Statistics is a science which questions results of studies Bollocks. from your own link: Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data. -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lembeh Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Oh, and by the way, while I cannot access the full text of the article (its restriced access), I was able to find the "Instructions to authors" for papers that are submitted to *that* journal (Archives of General Psychiatry), in those instructions is the following: Statistical Analysis. Include a statistical analysis section under â??Methodsâ? that fully describes the application of each statistical procedure used. If a test is used that is not commonly presented in the Archives, briefly describe its purpose and how it is to be interpreted. Results should report the test statistic (eg, �2, F, or t value), degrees of freedom, and P value or confidence limits. Measures of central tendency (eg, means) should be accompanied by measures of variability (eg, SDs). http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/misc/ifora.dtl#StatisticalAnalysis I think you have absolutely no idea of what you are babbling about. -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 "Modern statistics is about quantifying uncertainty in all sorts of system. It addresses the knowledge we think we have, the knowledge we know we donâ??t have, and perhaps even the knowledge we donâ??t know we donâ??t have." Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Hi, Josh, do you think you can discuss this without getting personal? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogul Posted September 6, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 That *really* is a misleading header on this thread. "Luk krung" are *not* at a higher risk for autism. Children of *older fathers* are at a higher risk of autism, and this is irrespective of nationality/race etc, and indeed independent of the mothers age (which is quite surprising). You really should change that header if you can. -j- i guess i should have posed it as a question rather than a blanket statement. my apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 I once read, somewhere, that children of older parents (like in their 50's, 60's) had a very high chance that they (the children) would turn out to be a genius (extremely high IQs). Maybe autism is just a little across the mark from being a genius??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pescator Posted September 7, 2006 Report Share Posted September 7, 2006 My buddy (old father by the way) has a luk krung child who is an autist. In certain areas he is extremely knowledgeable. He is known among friends as the encyplopedia. He just lack social skills. I remember an episode last year. My buddy was riding a cab from don muang. Forgot his cell phone in the cab whick he found out few minutes after the cab left. He was making a lot of noise about being so careless, but was interrupted by his son: "Would it help if you had the license plate number and the number of his ID, displayed on the dashboard?" Actually I don`t find the header by the OP so misleading afterall - not because they are luuk krung but for the reasons listed below: Wouldn`t you agree that a large percentage of farang marrying thai women are significantly older than their spouse? Yours truly included by the way. And many father a luuk krung at a rather ripe age? Judging from posts on this board it certainly seems to be the case and also judging from the RLs I know of. cheers hua nguu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardinalblue Posted September 8, 2006 Report Share Posted September 8, 2006 Somewhat interesting as it goes against what i learned from my father growing up... In the 60's through the 80's, it was a common belief that women over 35 and even greater risk over 40 for having autistic children. There was never any dialogue about the age of the father playing any role in the risk factors.. This was a generally accepted belief in the medical profession and important because doctors did influence and advise women and couples about age as a risk factor... CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.