Correlations that exist despite a mountain of other explanatory variables are always striking...modern modelling techniques allow us to account for multiple categorical and continuous variables, fixed and random effects, atypical distributions, and the rest. I see no reason why—given enough data—and even with measurement errors, we (not me) can't find out some useful stuff...even if it's purely pub banter material.
I'm guessing a lot of the people climbing 7C and above who said they can't do a full one armer can probably lock off on one arm though?
(as it happens I'm doing backwards selection on a lme as I write this).
This builds on earlier points by TT, PJH and Danny regarding lattice testing...I've not convinced about the climbing is easier for the tall conclusion from the lattice data - and I'm a short climber so could do with the excuse.It could easily be argued the opposite way - the lattice tests are easier for the short.
Quote from: highrepute on December 15, 2017, 03:12:42 pmThis builds on earlier points by TT, PJH and Danny regarding lattice testing...I've not convinced about the climbing is easier for the tall conclusion from the lattice data - and I'm a short climber so could do with the excuse.It could easily be argued the opposite way - the lattice tests are easier for the short.This. Even when we're talking about correlations we can't help but drift into causality.
Quote from: Luke Owens on December 15, 2017, 02:34:32 pmI'm guessing a lot of the people climbing 7C and above who said they can't do a full one armer can probably lock off on one arm though?I expect this is generally the case. It certainly is with myself and the people I climb with.