From pauljohn32 at gmail.com  Fri May 15 18:38:02 2009
From: pauljohn32 at gmail.com (Paul Johnson)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:38:02 -0500
Subject: [Rd] will one of you help me advocate a change in t.test (patch
	attached)
In-Reply-To: <5c62e0070905150805t199452f7h46313020d8c2de91@mail.gmail.com>
References: <13e802630905141410q52461e05q7f7c0e291ce3b5e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<5c62e0070905150805t199452f7h46313020d8c2de91@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13e802630905150938o4acb940cqabcc621eb48009c0@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Kevin W <kw.statr at gmail.com> wrote:
> My view from the sidelines....
>
> I think you have done the right thing to include a patch, but you have
> provided no justification for the patch in terms of why it would be useful.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kevin
>

Ah, I see. I thought it was obvious.  I think users should be able to
easily know the standard error when they do t.tests.

People who do t-tests sometimes need to discuss their findings, and
the standard error may be an important consideration.  While one can
(of course) recover the standard error by doing some division, it is
inconvenient and, at least in the classroom, on the border of tedious.

We allow regression printouts with several layers of redundant information--

b  se t p

We should not make it difficult for users to discern the standard
error that is actually used in the t.test procedure?

pj

-- 
Paul E. Johnson
Professor, Political Science
1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504
University of Kansas



[Rd] will one of you help me advocate a change in t.test (patch attached)
Paul Johnson