Null Hypothesis

Let's talk about stats, Jack-e.
Let's talk about it and me
And for my grad school crowd,
LET ME TALK ABOUT IT REAL LOUD.

The story between Stats and I is complicated. In fact, we may be in therapy for a while sorting it all out.

With Stats, you see, I have had to learn to not take all the double negatives positively. I'll take a moment and let you read that sentence again. I - have - had - to - learn - to - not - take - all - the - double - negatives - positively.

Got that? Great. Moving on.

Stats is like that man in the new Old Spice commercial only subtract the attractiveness and multiple the number of times he switches from doing one thing to another without warning. One moment, Stats is sitting there on a horse looking all clear and sensical, and the next moment, he is playing tennis on a beach blowing white sand in my face while I am trying to figure out what in the tar heavens is going on. Form doesn't never follow function. It just doesn't never.

Confused yet? No? ....Yes? ....Not sure? Okay.  Well, I HAVE A CURE FOR THAT! Shhh.... KEEP THIS BETWEEN US.

For example, if  you were to run a CHI-SQUARED TEST on the assumption that Phi sounds like Fie and then catch yourself saying FEE FIE,  FEE FIE over and over...

You can't immediately assume that FO FUM would follow with Stats.

That's not the nature of this relationship.

You haven't actually proven that Phi is Fie

Only that that Phi ISN'T Fie. 

And besides....

That's not what is meant by normal distribution, Jack. 

Ah HA! I caught you looking for magic beans to save you. 

Don't worry. I won't judge you because I think you can see clearly now what my relationship with Stats is like. While you take a moment to figure out the literary allusion I am referring to, I will continue to describe this twisted relationship.

With Stats,  I've learned to never ask the question why.... WHY? you ask. .... Ugh... You aren't really reading the subtext, are you?  Fine. I'll allow one standard deviation and then overwhelm you with a ticker tape stream of numbers and jabberwocky because according to Statistics, you should have already intuitively known why in the first place. Stats are never wrong, you see. Deep down, Jack, you know this makes nonsense. My therapist told me to DIG, DIG, then go to sleep. It should grow and all my problems should be solved.

To some degree that was true. When I woke up, I realized that Stats should never not have to repeat itself.  That's right.... I said "should never not have to".  In replay, isn't it like watching the translation of a kung-fu movie? For every two words originally spoken, four thousand followed at a rate that only the micro-machine man could rival. I don't fully unappreciate all fascinating discussions I could have with Stats. I should unappreciate it more. 

I sense your frustration, so  I will end the description of my relationship here. 

If it seemed like at times I was yelling at you, and you are perplexed as to why, remember once again that I told you not to ask that question, but since you did and haven't learned not to yet, let me explain to you that its only because I assumed that language of Statistics is not your native tongue.  It's not mine. Which is why Stats and I have so many problems. My original theory (ironically) was that if I yelled certain parts  LOUDER and communicated large amounts of complicated information through running a stream of consciousness and one literary allusion.... that you may NOT  have been able to NOT comprehend my conclusion.  Clearly, my assumption was correct.

I've failed to reject the null hypothesis that you could comprehend what I was saying anyway.