Comment by syntacticsalt
Comment by syntacticsalt a day ago
Reporting effect size mitigates this problem. If observed effect size is too small, its statistical significance isn't viewed as meaningful.
Comment by syntacticsalt a day ago
Reporting effect size mitigates this problem. If observed effect size is too small, its statistical significance isn't viewed as meaningful.
Are you referring to the first figure, from Smith, et al, 2007? If so, I couldn't evaluate whether gwern's claim makes sense without reading that paper to get an idea of, e.g., sample size and how they control for false positives. I don't think it's self-evident from that figure alone.
One rule of thumb for interpreting (presumably Pearson) correlation coefficients is given in [0] and states that correlations with magnitude 0.3 or less are negligible, in which case most of the bins in that histogram correspond to cases that aren't considered meaningful.
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576830/table/T1/
Sure (and of course). But did you see the effect size histogram in the OP?