Now do you see why Professor Baker says that statistical significance doesn't matter much for really big data sets? (and this is NOT a big data set by reckoning in other fields)




Select one:
A. Yes — Bonferroni is ridiculously conservative with 1,112 tests, and yet correlations that are absurdly small still come up statistically significant.
B. No. I think the answer to Question 8 is a fine correlation, perfectly likely to represent a large effect size.
C. No. Big data is a FAD. No one should ever expect to work with a data set over 150 data points, especially after the societal collapse predicted by James Howard Kunstler occurs.