Most statisticians would agree with you. Unless Reeboks expected market share were between 2⁄3 and 3⁄5 of course. Though I expect that most laymen would have Phil’s Intuition, in any case the general point: That the statement leaks information remains :)
If a single shoe has an expected market share between 2⁄3 or 3⁄5 of top runners that suggest it’s the best running shoe. There isn’t really that much difference between the two.
Prior to carbon plates I would disagree with this. It would suggest the shoe manufacturer has the largest marketing spend. (In a post-carbon-plate world where people are covering over the swoosh so that (not-Nike) sponsored athletes can race in Nike shoes I think it’s pretty clear which shoe is best)
I disagree, if Reebok produced 64% of all shoes in the world and only 3⁄5 of top athletes used them, and this furthermore was the best statistics the marketing department could produce, then it’s strong evidence that they are over hyped.
But I think you understood me as saying something different, words are hard :)
I think we agree and are talking past each other, my original statement was “Most statisticians would agree with you. Unless...”
So we agree that there is more power in 3⁄5 than 2⁄3, and we happen to have divergent intuitions about what random Joe finds most persuasive, my intuition is rather weak so I would gladly update it towards 3⁄5 sounding more impressive to random people, if you feel strongly about it.
Most likely what the marketing folks have done is gotten a list of top 100 runners in different running disciplines and the reported “the most impressive top X in list Y”,
We both agree that the reported statistic is inflated, which is the major thesis, we simply disagree about how much information can be recovered because we have different “impressiveness sounding heuristics”
Most statisticians would agree with you. Unless Reeboks expected market share were between 2⁄3 and 3⁄5 of course. Though I expect that most laymen would have Phil’s Intuition, in any case the general point: That the statement leaks information remains :)
If a single shoe has an expected market share between 2⁄3 or 3⁄5 of top runners that suggest it’s the best running shoe. There isn’t really that much difference between the two.
Prior to carbon plates I would disagree with this. It would suggest the shoe manufacturer has the largest marketing spend. (In a post-carbon-plate world where people are covering over the swoosh so that (not-Nike) sponsored athletes can race in Nike shoes I think it’s pretty clear which shoe is best)
I disagree, if Reebok produced 64% of all shoes in the world and only 3⁄5 of top athletes used them, and this furthermore was the best statistics the marketing department could produce, then it’s strong evidence that they are over hyped.
But I think you understood me as saying something different, words are hard :)
Reebok doesn’t produce 64% of all shoes or a majority of shoes and that’s generally known by shoe buyers.
I think we agree and are talking past each other, my original statement was “Most statisticians would agree with you. Unless...”
So we agree that there is more power in 3⁄5 than 2⁄3, and we happen to have divergent intuitions about what random Joe finds most persuasive, my intuition is rather weak so I would gladly update it towards 3⁄5 sounding more impressive to random people, if you feel strongly about it.
Most likely what the marketing folks have done is gotten a list of top 100 runners in different running disciplines and the reported “the most impressive top X in list Y”,
We both agree that the reported statistic is inflated, which is the major thesis, we simply disagree about how much information can be recovered because we have different “impressiveness sounding heuristics”