odditycollector (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
odditycollector) wrote2006-10-17 04:41 pm
odditycollector) wrote2006-10-17 04:41 pm
Entry tags:
Selection Bias
A couple of years ago I took a course on the use of statistics in psychology.* The following paragraph has stuck with me longer and *sharper* than almost anything I've read since.
Wainer (1999) tells a story from World War II that reminds us of the sometimes perverse aspects of selection bias. He describes an aircraft analyst who was trying to determine where to place extra armor on an aircraft based on the pattern of bullet holes in the returning planes. His decision was to put the extra armor in the places that were free of bullet holes on the returning aircraft that he analyzed. His reasoning was that the planes had probably been pretty uniformly hit with bullets. Where he found the bullet holes on the returning aircraft told him that, in those places, the plane could be hit and still return.
- Stanovich; How to Think Straight About Psychology (7)
When I think of it currently, I'm almost certain that tangled in this idea is a thick and twisty piece of meta on alternate universes. DCU, because that's where I am, and the universes that exist beside it in canon and in fandom. The ones we read about, the ones we write. The ones we don't.
Or possibly just an essay on Tim Drake.
*A course usually taken by Arts students who imagine they are on track to cutting up the brains of mice and such. I took it because I liked statistics and thought psychology was rather neat as an idea. Why *wouldn't* the two go great together!
The fact that my course picking logic has not really improved since then is a lot of the reason I don't have a pretty piece of paper yet.
no subject
The thought behind the quote is simple and terrifying. And it was a *technician's* decision. Not theory.
Or possibly just an essay on Tim Drake.
Pretty please with a cherry on top?
no subject
no subject
A certain level of suck is okay, because we've come to expect that and will keep reading anyway?
no subject
I hope you are not implying things about my meta skills!
no subject
Trying to grok what you're getting from that quote. It seems to be a statement about protecting the unknown qualities of something -- the engineer didn't know what those areas were good for, he just drew a correlation between their being intact and the plan surviving. I assumed your idea was about canon writers not really knowing what fans liked, but are able to work in a way that doesn't drive people away.
no subject
Ah. Nah. My thoughts, as always, are pretty entirely divorced from anything going on in current canon. (Or, indeed, what it means as science.)
It's.... in all possible universes, canon or fan-written, you find the characters broken in pretty much the same ways. (And the reason is that, of course, they *have* to be, to be recognizable, but we are pretending we don't know this.) Eg, if your Not!Batman!Bruce *is* Brucie Wayne, billionaire playboy, you are doing something *wrong*.
Different events, but for the universe to *work*, to be believable, certain things must remain in place. And, of course as this is fiction, the non-believable universes functionally don't exist, because why would we want to play there?
It makes one wonder about the universes that have failed. And we can only guess at their shape from the patterns of holes in the ones we do see.
At least, that's what I think the sketch of the idea is shaped like. It would take more thinking.
no subject
D'oh! Sorry 'bout that. (I didn't think you were upset, but wanted to err on the side of my being rude -- usually a safe bet. *g*)
...you find the characters broken in pretty much the same ways.
Identifying the hard-points of the universe? What must be, and what doesn't have to be?
no subject
no subject
And the reason it is so *interesting* is that the standard human's first instinct is to say, hey, it seems like the planes are only getting hit *here*, so *here* is where we should protect them....
no subject
no subject