# There's more than a Chance this warning was unwarranted **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 18, 2020, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-more-than-a-chance-this-warning-was-unwarranted/915634 "2020-07-18T02:03:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 16
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2020, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-more-than-a-chance-this-warning-was-unwarranted/915634/16 "2020-07-19T04:10:11Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > There is a Wiki page for [Statistical significance and it mentions statistical insignificance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance). Invoking the phrase does not mean the person is insignificant. It is a common phrase used in statistics. Statisticians would not take this as a slight, they would either show that their argument has statistical significance or concede the point. But that’s a little disingenous when what you actually said was: > [@WTF happened to improve Trump’s odds of re-election?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wtf-happened-to-improve-trump-s-odds-of-re-election/914869/152): > > Your mommy may have said you were special, and I hate to break your bubble, but most all moms say that to their kids. **You** are statistically insignificant. [my bold] Nobody (statistician or otherwise) would interpret this invective as nothing more than making a scientific point about the significance of Dr Deth’s data. With that preamble, saying “ **you** are statistically insignificant” reads to me like a deliberate play on words between the term of art and the everyday meaning of insignificance. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theres-more-than-a-chance-this-warning-was-unwarranted/915634)._