Bungee Jumper

No, they don't. You just don't understand them.

I'll stop polluting threads when you do.

No matter which choice he took, he'd be in error anyway. He should regress toward the mean and take the 1.5th option...

But it's so much !@#$ing fun to read, i'n't it?

Uhhh...because they can read? Why on earth not? I don't need to "win". I'm right, and you're an idiot. There's nothing for me to "win"...no matter what happens, I'm still right and you're still an idiot.

The quote directly addresses the phenomenon I've been describing. A correlation of 0 from one test to the next would imply the test results were obtained due entirely to random chance. A correlation of 1 would imply that test results were obtained due strictly to successful measurement. The Berkeley quote is implying the correlation between scores on a test and a retest is positive (it's measuring something innate) but less than one (there is measurement error involved). In situations like this, the phenomenon I've been describing predicts that those who obtained high scores on the first test will still be above-average upon being retested, but not by quite as much as their initial scores would indicate. 873519[/snapback] Which is completely and utterly different from regression toward the mean in the population as a whole, you nitwit. Like I keep saying - and you continually keep misunderstanding - the regression of one person's test scores is due to the regression of ERROR to the mean. Population variance is a totally different concept.

Actually, the boats are pretty new and shiny British diesel-electric boats...save the one that, on its way over from England, caught fire in the middle of the Atlantic last year.

You know, it's awfully rare that you and I are on the same side of an idiot-bashing contest. Who are you, and where's the real RkFast?

You mean...that Berkely snippet doesn't mean what HA thinks it means? I thought it was a brilliant piece of double-talk, myself..."Because of positive correllations between test and retest scores, people who score high the first time tend to score almost as high the second time." In other words, "Because of positive correlation, correlation is positive." Yeah, no sh--... Berkely's also known for inventing LSD. Doesn't seem all that coincidental, does it?

No, you've been calling it "regression toward the mean", specifically toward the population mean. And you're wrong. It's not. Stop changing your story and thinking no one will notice; generally, most of the people here have better reading comprehension skills than you, and won't be caught out by your "That's not what I said!" act. Can you even define "correlation"? You don't even know what that quote from Berekley means, do you? If you did, you'd see it's bull sh--. Care to guess why, specifically? (Hint: describe the meaning of a correlation coefficient of "1". Then define "tautology".) You've been very clear. You just haven't been consistent. Or you have, in that you've consistently changed your argument when cornered by facts in a vain attempt to appear correct. Now you've taken it to the point of posting stuff you don't even understand and shouting "But it's from Stanford! I won!" Well...sorry Sparky. First off, this isn't about winning to me. It's not a competition, it's about watching you flop around in mathematical ignorance like a landed fish. Second off...it's easy to say "I won", but it's tough to win any competition when you're flopping around in mathematical ignorance like a gutted fish.

I know, but it's slated for decomissioning soon. And, as I said, I have low expectations of there being another...

Better an amphibious transport, though. Lots of Marines in her...

And Nimitz. And even Reagan (I don't agree with it...but considering his 600-ship navy plan, I can understand it). But the USS George H.W. Bush?

Wow. Hearing this from a Western NY native, given Buffalo's economic situation, is both highly ironic and not the least bit ironic. Simultaneously. That's a real accomplishment.

It's simple. Your average person has brown eyes. If you have blue eyes, your DNA's wrong. As people have kids, the kids' DNA becomes more and more correct, and the population's eyes regress toward the mean until everyone has 3.5 brown eyes. QED.

It's not pointless. Like I said, his delusions entertain me. You've got to love how he posts ten sources that prove my point, along with statements of "this proves you were wrong." I need to invent a new phrase to describe his consistent inability to see things as they are, but rather as the complete opposite of what they are. Let's call it "conceptual dyslexia". I believe his response to this will be along the lines of: "I won! I won! I won!" Accompanied by much diaper-pissing.

1) It's coming from a Stanford web page, which makes it a little easier to ridicule. 2) It contains no math, which makes it a LOT easier to ridicule. 3) I don't need to ridicule it. You simply don't understand what that's saying and what it means: in a test that has a certain measure of error, people with extreme amounts of error will have less extreme amounts of error upon retesting as the error regresses to the mean. This is not the same as regression to the mean of the population. That's what everything you've linked to today has said. That's what I've said. That's ENTIRELY different from what you've been saying. All you've proved today is that 1) you still can't distinguish between variance and error, and 2) you can't read. This is why I keep this topic going. Your delusions entertain me.

Isn't the JFK retired already? If not, it should be retired by the time CVN78 is commissioned. What gets me is that, with the current vogue of naming carriers after presidents, they probably won't commission another Enterprise.

No, dumbass, the Stanford quote says exactly what I've been saying: the error regresses toward the mean of the error, not the mean of the population. You just can't read.

873117[/snapback] The definition of "regression fallacy" is FAR more relevant to your bull sh-- than "regression effect". Which is not the same as "regression toward the mean" anyway. All you've done is change your argument again in a feeble and futile attempt to seem as though you have even the merest clue what you're talking about.

Or split them entirely: coaches and players (and maybe sportswriters) vote on the Pro-Bowl. Fans vote on the All-Fan Team.

I'm saying you're wrong, because you can't read for sh--. And according to you, that's because of error. You still can't distinguisy between "error" and population variance, which is the entire crux of your total idiocy. Error is error. Population variance is population variance. They are not the same thing.

Wow. As impressed as I am that you finally read a book, you managed to find a textbook that's actually more wrong than you are. Any of the financial experts out there want to discuss the fallacy of "error" in exceptional mutual fund performance?

How can you tell when you're only "slightly" off-kilter?

Not quite true. You might plan on using the part of your brain that asks "Why the !@#$ am I sitting through this sh-- movie?" It wasn't Starship Troopers bad, or Showgirls bad. But Lord, it wasn't good.