In article nR%Va.24664$YN5.23125@sccrnsc01, Harry Lavo wrote:

You mean not accepting the "received truth" without doing my own analysis is
cherry picking, is that it Stewart? We are not allowed to point out
anonomlies and ask "why"? "how come"? "what could be causing this?"

You are indeed cherry picking. With 12 individuals the probability that
one would would appear to meet the 95% level is fairly high. Remember
that you can expect 1 in 20 to meet that level entirely by random. It
is not acceptable scientific practice to select specific data sub-sets
out of the complete set. Otherwise you could "prove" anything by simply
running enough trials and ignoring those you don't like. Check any peer
reviewed journal.

In any event, 11 out 15 has a probability of 5.9 % of occuring by chance.
That does not meet the 95 % confidence level. It would be rejected in
a peer reviewed statistical study. (If that was the only data more
trials would called for. But it wasn't the only data.)

And would you explain why a significant level was reached on the "A" cable
test with 96 trials? Was that "cherry picking". C'mon, Stewart, you know
better. In fact the real issue here is: if one cable can be so readily
picked out, why can't the other be? What is it in the test, procedure,
quality of the cables, order bias, or what. Something is rotten in the
beloved state of ABX here!

Where are you getting your numbers? The data they posted on the
web page showed that there were 52 correct answers in 96 trials.
At least 52 correct answers will occur entirely by chance 23.8 %
of the time. This is far from statistically significant.