|visits||member for||1 year, 6 months|
|seen||Mar 28 at 0:29|
Is it ever good to increase significance level?
@pmgjones: Yes, I believe that's the point that Peter Flom is making. He wrote that "there is no reason why type II errors are necessarily less bad than type I errors" (emphasis mine), then gave one example situation where he would consider type II errors to be worse.
Which “mean” to use and when?
Why would your SAT/GPA/extracurricular example use a geometric mean rather than a weighted or scaled arithmetic mean? Why should an SAT or GPA of zero mean that the other two values become irrelevant (as a geometric mean would imply)? And what if (say) extracurricular-activities tend to cluster in a much narrower band than its theoretical range? It seems like it would make more sense to take an arithmetic mean of percentiles (or other adjusted values) than a geometric mean of raw values.