Here are the results:
| Table Analyzed | Data 1 | ||
| Fisher's exact test | |||
| P value | 0.0013 | ||
| P value summary | ** | ||
| One- or two-sided | Two-sided | ||
| Statistically significant? (alpha<0.05) | Yes | ||
| Data analyzed | Men | Women | Total |
| sitting | 19 | 17 | 36 |
| standing | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| Total | 19 | 29 | 48 |
As you can see, there's only a 0.13% chance that such a distribution could happen by chance*, making this results significant.
Now the question is, why? Initially I thought it was because men are pushier and get into the train faster. Alternately, it could be mostly women getting on in Jena and the men were already sitting down. Anyone have any other hypotheses?
* Feel free to criticize my stats or reanalyze if you like.
3 comments:
I think you definitely should follow up with the subjects to determine point of entry and then explore what sort of male female population distributions exist along the train route.
I'm disappointed that you didn't dedicate your weekend to riding the train back and forth. You probably want more than one time point.
This is interesting, clearly you should have been a social scientist. I wonder about the age and able-bodiedness of passengers. Were most women young? were most men old? Also, when I was in Germany, I noticed that the BO of male passengers was more pungent than that of female passengers. Now I seem to have lost my statistical analysis of the pungicity of the body odor, but I also came up with results that asserted the level of male stank was significant when compared to female stank...just some thoughts...
My, my Emily, what an analytical mind you have :)
SP
Post a Comment