A BIAS in the Pensieve: A Batty Idea About Snape

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:
> 
> Lyn now:
> It can be fun to be "geeky and quantitative" sometimes but in this
> case a t-test
> is not appropriately applied and thus the results are not meaningful.
> A frequency table
> (which, of course is what Charme did) is appropriate, but the
> assumptions for a t-test is
> that the event can occur randomly. Now if it were the use of a word
> like "other" that
> might be used undeliberatively, you might consider its use at least
> quasi-random and get by with it (and indeed I am sure you are aware
> there are analysis routines that do just this).
> However, words like hag and vampire are selected deliberately and thus
> are no longer open to random inclusion in the text, thus a t-test
> would be misapplied for this sort of
> data.
> 
> 
> Neri:
> (Warning: "geeky and quantitative" stuff ahead)
> Words like "other" are also used for some reason, not randomly.
> Scientists believe *everything* happens because of some reason and
> nothing is truly random (or at least, nothing above quantum level),
> and yet they use t-test all the time. The question is not if it's
> random, but if the reason JKR chose the word is indeed the reason that
> we hypothesize. That is, suppose JKR describes the clientele of the
> Hog's Head and she thinks: " I must throw in some non-human here to
> make it more colorful. Now what will it be? A hag? A vampire? A
> banshee? A veela? OK, lets have a hag because it just seems the sort
> that would hang in the Hog's Head". In this case you'd expect that
> overall vampires would be mentioned a similar number of times as other
> non-humans. But suppose JKR goes like: "what non-human should I use?
> Wait! I must put in some vampires and also supply some information
> about them, so when I reveal in Book 7 that Snape is half vampire they
> won't say I didn't play fair". In such a case you'd expect that
> vampires would be mentioned considerably more than other non-humans
> that don't play a key role in the story. This is the usual situation
> in which t-test is used. Now, if you really want to catch me in a
> statistical error you could have said something like "t-test assumes a
> normal distribution and you don't know that. You should have used a
> non-parametric test" which is perfectly true, only non-parametric
> tests have less power than parametric tests, so I sincerely doubt that
> a non-parametric test would have found a significant difference where
> t-test didn't. 
> 

Lyn now:
Some might consider me to be well trained as a "scientist" and as one who uses SPSS 
almost daily and who has taught statistics to doctoral students, I'm not unfamiliar with the 
proper selection and application of a fair number of statistical tests. Yes, I could have 
discussed the assumptions required for parametric vs nonparametric tests, 
homoscedasticity, power and the like, which is really nothing more than Statistics 101, but 
all of that as it applies to the kind of differences you were suggesting you could test rests 
on the basic foundation of chance, so why not skip to what is not only foundational but 
also apprehendable to the general audience, which is that Rowling's choice of words is not 
random, they are driven by a story line. I am confident you don't believe that she chose her 
words by pulling them from a hat, and I am also confident you know that there are greater 
complexities to her choice of words than you are indicating.  It isn't "geeky" to generate 
pseudo-statistical arguments, it is deceptive, though I don't think you meant for it to be.  

> Lyn:
> You keep asking what point it would play in the plot, even though I
> have given
> Several examples of how it could, and both Charme and SSSusan have
> mentioned the
> Significance in their own views. To reiterate just one that SSS
> discussed as well, it would
> explain why Snape remained silent about the Prank, and why he may have
> retained resentment over it.
> 
> 
> Neri:
> You can always suggest how to connect something to the plot. I guess
> what Magda and I meant is to ask "what major mystery would it solve?"
> I mean, Snape being a vampire or half vampire or whatever is a quite a
> big bang. Bigger than Hagrid being half giant. Bigger even than Lupin
> being a werewolf, which was a one-book mystery, not a five-book
> mystery. It doesn't look like JKR would make Snape part vampire only
> to plug a minor plot hole about the prank or something like that. It
> should be something very important. I mean, if you said that he spies
> on Voldy and the DEs by turning into a bat and hanging over their
> heads, well I'm not sure I'd buy that, but at least it would be a
> worthy reason to make Snape a vampire.

Lyn again:
Yet I would hope you can allow from the posts that have been made, that at least for some 
of us, a "worthy reason" for Snape to have some association to Vampires and thus perhaps 
some vampire-like characteristics, has been suggested. Obviously the things that satisfy 
some of us, don't satisfy you. Of course if it we all agreed, then there wouldn't be much 
point to these speculations and discussions, and that would be a real loss of enjoyment, at 
least for me.  So keep firing away Neri, it keeps us all thinking and discussing, and indeed, 
even coming up with new speculations. 

Lyn