[ SECRET POST #7022 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #7022 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.




__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #1003.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Pet peeves!

[iff_and_xor]

To get pretty geeky about it, I wonder if this is part of a larger tendency people have, wanting tests to be more conclusive than they really are.

In medical statistics, they talk about false positives and false negatives (or specificity vs sensitivity). While in a perfect world, important tests would be excellent at both sides of the equation, in reality, the principle is generally that you can only minimize one of them at a time.

In this case, you’ve got very few false positives: people who test positive (by being a dick to service workers) are almost certainly assholes. But there are probably plenty of false negatives: people who don’t show up as assholes on the test, but are still actually assholes in some other context.

In a medical context, you could consider a test like that to be a first stage of screening. It’ll catch a good number of cases, but you have to follow up with more testing on people who “pass” the first round (especially if they have other risk factors).