Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
vivluvsme

Overturned Assumption

23 posts in this topic

Without looking at it studiously, I had always got the impression that there were more No responses in FRs for London punts than for the rest of the country (even all put together, I guessed).

 

And that seemed to make sense with probably the highest turnover of SPs, short-term visiting SPs, a much smaller proportion of repeat visits.

 

So when looking at the latest batch of 500 most recent FRs and seeing early No responses for Central London, I did a quick count up including locations mentioning London and others I deemed within London boroughs (eg Ilford).

 

Of the 500 reports, London had 198 entries.

 

But of the 41 No reports, only 15 were in London and 26 elsewhere.

 

I was surprised and I think it speaks well of London?

 

I guess the weighting why London does perform better than I expected is that overall the prices are higher and a higher percentage of agency appointments perhaps.

 

Or am I missing the the main point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Or am I missing the the main point?

What is the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point?

 

Harry Nillson knew what it was.  2.23mins in and he explains it perfectly.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPqvHRvA8w0

 

I loved this album and it has brought back lovely memories.... even a tear to my throat and a lump to my eye.

 

 

:)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't an assumption formed from little or no information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't an assumption formed from little or no information?

 

Whereas..... PREsumption.....  :blink:

 

As or pre

 

Who gives a fart....... listen to my music clip.... that'll cheer you up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad this thread starter has gone down so well.

 

Soppy to quibble with 'assumption' as we all make assumptions.

 

Someone has asked me what No responses refer to.

 

If you choose the latest 500 FRs to look at, there is a yes or no down the right hand side.

 

I will never presume (allowed?) to think I am worthy of starting a thread again.

 

Or at least not until I have earned my stripes making enough comments on others' threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right hand column is recommendations, if that's what you mean.

 

AW has a response facility, which the wg can use, to state her side of the report. If that is what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've demonstrated the danger of relying on one data point when analysing statistics - unless you're writing for the Daily Mail in which case that's the MO they use.

 

Put to one side that you are relying on your determination of what is a London borough and what isn't.

 

You're saying that of 500 reports, 38% were from London. And of 41 "No" reports, 37% were from London.

 

What's your point?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've demonstrated the danger of relying on one data point when analysing statistics - unless you're writing for the Daily Mail in which case that's the MO they use.

Put to one side that you are relying on your determination of what is a London borough and what isn't.

You're saying that of 500 reports, 38% were from London. And of 41 "No" reports, 37% were from London.

What's your point?

My point exactly... What is the OP's point?

I'm not sure what statistical point this is supposed to make... He's lost me totally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. He's saying that his perception previously was that the London area (which he defines for himself) attracts more negative field report responses than other areas and outlines his reasons which would support such an assumption in an ex post sort of way. However his reading of the recent data doesn't support that and it's not difficult to infer that he's opening the floor for comments about whether the London scene is more or less reliable than elsewhere. It's not rocket science.

8.2% of FRs were negative. Within the London population 7.6% were negative; within the rest 8.6% were negative.

Hard to argue that the sample is statistically valid but assuming it were what could be the reasons? London punters are less demanding? London WGs are better? London market is more competitive driving better service? Etc etc etc...

Well done to the OP for challenging his perceptions with data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day, I'll have a shit punt with girl X, the next guy will have a great time... The next day I have a great time with her... Next week, it might be great or it might be shit...

It's all a load of bollocks!

I mean, it even depends on who posts the reviews, who the girls were.... It's like concluding that London football teams are statistically more likely to win at home than teams from the rest of the country by taking a single weekend's results - it doesn't take into account the opposition, the players that were suspended or unavailable and so on.

All a crock of shit and I really can't see that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what do we do now?

We recognise that shagging prostitutes can be hit and miss whenever and wherever you do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus. He's saying that his perception previously was that the London area (which he defines for himself) attracts more negative field report responses than other areas and outlines his reasons which would support such an assumption in an ex post sort of way. However his reading of the recent data doesn't support that and it's not difficult to infer that he's opening the floor for comments about whether the London scene is more or less reliable than elsewhere. It's not rocket science.

8.2% of FRs were negative. Within the London population 7.6% were negative; within the rest 8.6% were negative.

Hard to argue that the sample is statistically valid but assuming it were what could be the reasons? London punters are less demanding? London WGs are better? London market is more competitive driving better service? Etc etc etc...

Well done to the OP for challenging his perceptions with data.

Well yes indeed there is some merit to what happened here. the fellow has gotten up to make a statement after due consideration of the field reports. And from his observations he has made an assessment (which is why i questioned it being an assumption), which is basically accurate; there being no reason to dispute it. then unfortunately he seems to have questioned whether or not  he had got it right, or indeed if he had actually just committed himself to doing that.

Edited by oddbloke
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes indeed there is some merit to what happened here. the fellow has gotten up to make a statement after due consideration of the field reports. And from his observations he has made an assessment (which is why i questioned it being an assumption), which is basically accurate; there being no reason to dispute it. then unfortunately he seems to have questioned whether or not  he had got it right, or indeed if he had actually just committed himself to doing that.

 

Actually that didn't happen. The OP proposed a hypothesis which clearly wasn't based on due consideration of the field reports. Then the OP produced a statistic which was based on due consideration of the field reports. As has been noted though the methodology is potentially suspect. There are also so many potential confounding variables as to make a single statistic very unsafe, but anyway.

 

We could perhaps have a discussion about confirmation bias for the original hypothesis if you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem is there is no consideration of a very important variable... supply...

 

The last lifestyle survey showed men in london were twice as likely to have paid for sex as men elsewhere in the UK... which suggests there is a greater supply of WGs in London than elsewhere which would be a substantial distribution bias... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, essentially, it is a pile of wank.

The theory - assumption - assessment - whatever it is... Absolutely pointless.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, you can find yourself having a shit shag. The chances of having a shit shag depend upon many variables and the chances that you will report your shag on punternet is equally packed with variables... Some people only report their shit shags, some only report their world-beating shags and some wouldn't report a shit shag or a great shag if their erection depended upon it.

I still don't see the fucking point?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that didn't happen. The OP proposed a hypothesis which clearly wasn't based on due consideration of the field reports. Then the OP produced a statistic which was based on due consideration of the field reports. As has been noted though the methodology is potentially suspect. There are also so many potential confounding variables as to make a single statistic very unsafe, but anyway.

 

We could perhaps have a discussion about confirmation bias for the original hypothesis if you like.

Is it common for both confirmation bias and a faulty hypothesis to in effect feed each other towards an incorrect conjecture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, essentially, it is a pile of wank.

The theory - assumption - assessment - whatever it is... Absolutely pointless.

It doesn't matter where in the world you are, you can find yourself having a shit shag. The chances of having a shit shag depend upon many variables and the chances that you will report your shag on punternet is equally packed with variables... Some people only report their shit shags, some only report their world-beating shags and some wouldn't report a shit shag or a great shag if their erection depended upon it.

I still don't see the fucking point?!

So, just to clarify, your point is that because the question involves many variables and is therefore difficult to answer it's not worth asking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it common for both confirmation bias and a faulty hypothesis to in effect feed each other towards an incorrect conjecture?

 

The confirmation bias leads to the incorrect hypothesis and vice-versa. They feed off each other. Remember, there is only one data set - the AW reviews. The original hypothesis was "when I don't account for bias, my belief is that AW reviews have more "No" answers for "London" escorts than "none-London" escorts. The confirmation bias means that subconsciously you build that belief and then remember reviews that confirm the belief and forget ones that don't. It's not conscious or dishonest, it's just human nature.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, just to clarify, your point is that because the question involves many variables and is therefore difficult to answer it's not worth asking?

I don't see where it takes us!

There are just too many variables for ANY answer to have ANY value.

And how would it help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confirmation bias leads to the incorrect hypothesis and vice-versa. They feed off each other. Remember, there is only one data set - the AW reviews. The original hypothesis was "when I don't account for bias, my belief is that AW reviews have more "No" answers for "London" escorts than "none-London" escorts. The confirmation bias means that subconsciously you build that belief and then remember reviews that confirm the belief and forget ones that don't. It's not conscious or dishonest, it's just human nature.

 

so is this inductive reasoning ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is this inductive reasoning ? 

That seems to include a probability factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0