Skip to main content
deleted 71 characters in body
Source Link
AliceD Mod
  • 20.7k
  • 10
  • 22

I think the general layout is fine. When I read the question, I started with the title and skipped through to the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. I wouldn't change anything to the wording.

But...

When I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site (I'm a mod after all :-) the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J (1899) found in his study that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is an a consequence of empathy within a group, or whether they just occur in parallel?

Now it is a stats question, but with a substantial Psych component in it. yourYour question, on the other hand, is really general might be a better fit for CrossCorrelatedtypical school-book stats interpretation issue of what correlation means, and that background knowledge about the topic is needed to infer meaning to correlation. In all, your question fits CrossValidated better imo.

I think the general layout is fine. When I read the question, I started with the title and skipped through to the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. I wouldn't change anything to the wording.

But...

When I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site (I'm a mod after all :-) the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J (1899) found in his study that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is an a consequence of empathy within a group, or whether they just occur in parallel?

Now it is a stats question, but with a substantial Psych component in it. your question, on the other hand, is really general might be a better fit for CrossCorrelated.

I think the general layout is fine. When I read the question, I started with the title and skipped through to the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. I wouldn't change anything to the wording.

But...

When I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site (I'm a mod after all :-) the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J (1899) found in his study that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is a consequence of empathy within a group, or whether they just occur in parallel?

Now it is a stats question, but with a substantial Psych component in it. Your question, on the other hand, is a typical school-book stats interpretation issue of what correlation means, and that background knowledge about the topic is needed to infer meaning to correlation. In all, your question fits CrossValidated better imo.

deleted 71 characters in body
Source Link
AliceD Mod
  • 20.7k
  • 10
  • 22

I think the general layout is fine. I'm active in science for quite a while and whenWhen I clicked toread the question, I readstarted with the title and skipped through to the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. Don'tI wouldn't change anything to the wording.

But...

ThenWhen I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site and(I'm a mod after all :-) the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J (1899) found in his study bladibla that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is an a consequence of empathy within a group (empathy strengthens social bonds --> leads in turn to more aggression to outsiders / co-evolution), or whether itthey just evolvedoccur in parallel?

Now it is a stats question, but with a substantial Psych component in it. your question, on the other hand, is really general might be a better fit for CrossCorrelated.

I think the general layout is fine. I'm active in science for quite a while and when I clicked to the question I read the title and the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. Don't change anything.

But...

Then I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site and the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J found in study bladibla that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is a consequence of empathy within a group (empathy strengthens social bonds --> leads in turn to more aggression to outsiders / co-evolution), or whether it just evolved in parallel?

I think the general layout is fine. When I read the question, I started with the title and skipped through to the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. I wouldn't change anything to the wording.

But...

When I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site (I'm a mod after all :-) the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J (1899) found in his study that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is an a consequence of empathy within a group, or whether they just occur in parallel?

Now it is a stats question, but with a substantial Psych component in it. your question, on the other hand, is really general might be a better fit for CrossCorrelated.

Source Link
AliceD Mod
  • 20.7k
  • 10
  • 22

I think the general layout is fine. I'm active in science for quite a while and when I clicked to the question I read the title and the concluding sentences with the question proper, omitting the middle part. Perfectly clear to me. Don't change anything.

But...

Then I skipped back to the middle part to see whether it fits our site and the real problem with this post has nothing to do with terminology, but with the fact it is a basic statistics question, namely how to interpret A correlated with B - what's next. A legitimate question, but not specifically for our forum. A better fitting question would be

Doe, J found in study bladibla that more within-group empathy correlates significantly with a higher incidence and more aggressive inter-group violence. I wish to know whether inter-group aggression is a consequence of empathy within a group (empathy strengthens social bonds --> leads in turn to more aggression to outsiders / co-evolution), or whether it just evolved in parallel?