Quoted By:
Well done on your autism, OP, but I'm another retard autist with no sense of how to use my time, so I'm going to prove him wrong and hopefully educate some of you fuckers at the same time
With this small a sample size, it's pretty obvious that this difference between male and female damage could be due to random chance. But how do you prove this? Use a student's t-test. you can see here I've loaded OP's data into a program called R, a useful tool for statisticians and FOSS for you neckbeards. Making it perform the t-test is as simple as using this line of code.
So what the fuck is a t-test? Simply put, it calculates a test statistic by calculating the means of the two kinds of data to be compared, here Male and Female, and looks at the difference between them compared to a measure of uncertainty. You can interpret the output here in two ways:
1. Look at the p value, which is 0.132. To put it simply, this means that the difference observed here is within a 13.2% chance of being a result of random chance, which is not considered significant.
2. Look at the 95% confidence interval of the difference between the means, which ranges between -0.5199 and 3.2799. This means that there is a 95% chance that a mean difference found between male and female damage is in this range, and since this includes 0, OP's results don't prove that males are stronger than females. In fact, OP's results prove nothing at all, not even than males are equal to females. Cont.