I Wrote A Blog Post, But Did Not Adjust For The Fact That The Title Would Be Too L

A statistics-debunking essay (the long joke title is itself the multiple-comparisons punchline). A University of Guelph study claimed fathers — not mothers — uniquely affect sons' obesity. Scott shows it ran 42 tests without correcting for multiple comparisons; 13 of 14 father/mother results were concordant, and the lone 'discordant' one was an artifact (the mother CI just included 1.00, the father CI just included 0.98). His killer analogy is the 'drug that only works on people whose names begin with M' simulation: discordances between subgroups arise by chance even when the effect is universal, and the study's '25 of 42 tests were significant' defense doesn't rescue a claim about DISCORDANCES. Plus the detective coda — the press release (hyping the father finding the paper itself buries) dropped three days before Father's Day. Honest close: the paper cites 43 parental-effect studies, so 'I should be a little more humble.'

Quality 73 · Strong. A clean, funny, genuinely instructive methods piece — the multiple-comparisons-for-discordances point (via the M-names simulation) is excellent pedagogy, and the Father's-Day-PR angle sharply shows how science gets distorted. In the Man-of-One-Study / Reporter-Degrees-of-Freedom family. Strong.

Claude’s paradigm shift 56 · Moderate. The 'multiple comparisons specifically invalidate DISCORDANCE claims' clarification, dramatized by the simulation, is a fresh, valuable methods point. Notable.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A within-discourse statistics-pedagogy essay; no material-world effect. Within-blog influence.