Boys Hurt Themselves More Often Playing With Wii

[alyoshka]

Why????????????????

 

[skora]

They didn't mention that boys playing with their Wii can cause blindness

 

[firebee1991]

The only point of this article was that girl. Damn, she's hot.

 

[cletus_slackjawd]

I hurt by elbow with Wii Tennis. Same with Golf, just swinging to hard. Ya boy...

 

[pasoleatis]

Your data is not statistically significant to be taken serious.

 

[x3style]

Girls don't have a WII to play with so they play with the boy's WII . xD

 

[cookoy]

what is the total population of boys playing Wii and total of girls playing Wii?
of course if you're playing that girl in the picture, someone's likely to get hurt.

 

[hixbot]

49 out of 92? Lol that's slighlty over half. How is this news? Good god, considering boys are injured in general more than girls, that boys play more video games than girls, I'd consider this amazing that girls hold such a high percentage. That's the real news here.

 

[Guest]

"sample size"

What is a valid sample size...? We are missing some important information. If that sample is from only Philadelphia, then I think it is possibly a census for that area. Regardless there are only two outcomes - Male or Female, which decreases likelihood of smaller sample sizes giving incorrect information. If there were 50 choices (favorite car or something) then you wouldn't even have 2 chances for a choice with a sample of only 92.

Anyhow my gut feeling is men injure themselves a bit more and this reflects that. So I accept it.

 

[tburns1]

What's with the picture? What kind of injuries are we talking about?

 

[COLGeek]

The numbers given, not significant. The headline is more impressive than the "study" itself.

Now, given plain ol' common sense and the maturity growth rates of "boys" and "girls", does this sound the least bit surprising in any way?

Sometimes we "study" things that really don't need studying.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]aznguy0028[/nom]Uhh... a larger sample size would make the study more valid. What you are suggesting is, if every subject represented all relevant groups and chosen randomly, a study with 30 participants would be just as valid as a study with 1000 instead? The reason why larger sample sizes make the study more valid is b/c a larger sample size can eliminate or diminish any bias or unknown variables. The whole point of statistical studies is to lower the margin of error into acceptable ranges so any changes in the results of your studies is from variables that you have control over (so you know they are indeed variables that is affecting the study and not just some unknown variables or extreme outliers). Therefore, you need a larger sample size to conclusively suggest anything....[/citation]

Did you just want a reason to use the word "larger" a hundred times? Surely, it can be generalized that "larger samples lead to better studies" but it is also true that "those that don't learn from statistics are doomed to repeat them"... Someone smarter than you (yes every last one of you whiners who said "boo hoo only 93 people") thought up the study, and you only sound dumb trying to discredit it without even reading the article. Way to find the most inane thing to complain about.

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]COLGeek[/nom]The numbers given, not significant. The headline is more impressive than the "study" itself. Now, given plain ol' common sense and the maturity growth rates of "boys" and "girls", does this sound the least bit surprising in any way?Sometimes we "study" things that really don't need studying.[/citation]

And sometimes we study things that sound irrelevant or "obvious" to morons like you, only to have them turn into electricity, computers, the internet, (insert most any technology here)... Get a life and stop trying to sound smart by criticizing studies you know pretty much nothing about. Good thing we weren't relying on you for cellphones or electric cars!