Bungee Jumper

As long as Wilson is publicly worrying about how hard it is to keep the team in Buffalo, I won't worry. It just shows how hard he's working to keep the team in Bufflalo. It's when I stop hearing things like this that I'll be concerned.

Well...so did Clinton! Wait...what?

Actually, the correlation between parents' and childrens' scores is much less than 1. Which is why regression toward the mean happens. Which must mean that a correlation of less than 1 is error...

Now error causes regression from the mean? This is why I keep this up. Every time I think your idiocy's peaked, you come up with something even stupider.

Normally, I think you're just tired...but that was !@#$ing brilliant.

My point being that these are the people that are supposed to replace the ignorant !@#$s we've had in office? Great. Wonderful. We've replaced a legislature with a complete lack of understanding of just about everything with a legislature with a complete lack of understanding of damn near everything. And this is "progress".

So we're all the way back to "error causes regression toward the mean"...but with a twist, that the parent's error causes the children's regression toward the mean. Which once again demonstrates: you can't tell the difference between error and normal population variance.

"Tom's dead. Ref. his tombstone."

Since I'm never on time for anything, I've left instructions in my will that my tombstone will say: "Here lies Tom. He's late."

Actually, what you're saying is that a tough possession receiver who can make catches in traffic is a real need. Which makes perfect sense...Price and Evans complement each other poorly, but each was complemented nicely by Eric Moulds. Doesn't mean Evans isn't a #1 receiver, though...it means he needs a receiver on the field with him who isn't a wilting flower.

The incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee doesn't know AQ ain't Shi'ite? Our country is !@#$ed.

Fine. Let's assume you're right (you're not...but let's assume you are). What is it supposed to mean?

How about EVERYONE WHO SCORES BELOW YOUR ARBITRARY THRESHHOLD, DUMBASS????? Jesus Christ...the effect you see, you only see because you're arbitrarily discarding that which cancels out the effect!!!! That's why it's not a real effect...because it's entirely in your head, invented when you decided that people who score less than your threshhold don't count...which causes the "error" to "regress toward the mean" the people you chose. That doesn't make it regression toward the mean. That makes it stupid.

And that's not regression toward the population mean. What part don't you understand? It doesn't cause regression toward the mean. It doesn't even appear to cause regression toward the mean...unless your a hydrocephalic moron like yourself who arbitrarily discards meaningful data that doesn't agree with you.

See a psychiatrist. Please. You've gone beyond simple stupidity into the realm of mental disorder.

Yeah, it'd be much better if they played to lose...

Vanilla Ice isn't cutting albums?

I expect his response will be along the lines of: You have to admire the sheer stubbornness with which he mindlessly clings to the "If you ignore everything that doesn't prove my point, the rest proves my point, whatever that is" rationalization, though...

AND THUS YOU PROVED THAT ERROR REGRESSES TOWARD THE MEAN OF THE ERROR, AS I'VE BEEN SAYING. The problem YOU have is that you think that represents regression to the mean of the population. Because you're too !@#$ing stupid to know the difference.

How do you not understand that this isn't valid methodology? You're taking an arbitrary subset of data, saying "See, it behaves a certain way", and completely ignoring the fact that the rest of the data you discarded CANCELS OUT THE BEHAVIOR OF YOUR ARBITRARILY CHOSEN SUBSET. Set it up as gaussian distributions of scores and error, integrate over all space, and you'll see it clearly: ERROR DOES NOT CAUSE REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN.

1) "Measurement error" and "natural variatiion in a person's underlying ability to think" ARE THE SAME !@#$ING THING!!! 2) Yes, we are working with that same understanding...but... ...that only describes the variation in ERROR. It does not describe at all the variation in the POPULATION. Which is what I've been saying for the past seventy pages. All you've been describing is regression OF THE ERROR toward the mean OF THE ERROR (namely: zero) for a given individual. But you INSIST on saying it's identical to the regression toward the POPULATION MEAN, which it isn't. Which is why my dice example doesn't discount that...it refers to regression of extreme values toward the POPULATION MEAN in the absence of ERROR, showing the fundamental difference between the error and regression toward the mean - a fundamental difference you still insist on misunderstanding. The "attempt" to "debate" "variance" and "measurement error", however, DOES speak directly to your misunderstanding, because you are consistently confusing measurement error inherent in the test (i.e. the entire testing process, including such minutiae as whether or not the subject got enough sleep the night before) with the varaince in scores in the overall population. THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Yes, that's right...because it allows you to determine the distribution OF ERROR in the test ("test" hear meaning "the measurement process", including all the variables that can affect the outcome. NOT meaning "The IQ test" itself. "Test" actually has a more specific definition that you've been using - yet another word you can't define, what a !@#$ing surprise.) But what you've been saying is that, because of the error, the person's "true IQ" will regress with repeated testing toward the POPULATION MEAN, and not the mean error of zero. Which is bull sh--. Furthermore, you've been saying that the test results regress toward the population mean BECAUSE OF THE ERROR, which is complete and utter bull sh--. And you're arguing all this to prove that a eugenics program would work...when your argument is that the people you'd favor in the eugenics program are not as exceptional as is required BY the eugenics program. Or, to put it more simply, in deference to your little pea-sized brain: HOW DO YOU CHOOSE YOUR BREEDING POPULATION FOR YOUR EUGENICS PROGRAM WHEN YOU "KNOW" YOUR BREEDING POPULATION IS SCORING "TOO HIGH" ON THE SELECTION CRITERIA BECAUSE OF "ERROR"? The basic reason is that you're a retard who can't string different concepts together to make a coherent argument, even in the rare cases when he DOES understand the concepts.

Of course, by your own logic, if your test scores were that extreme they'd be wrong... As for the rest of this...you are AMAZINGLY clueless. Phenomenally. As evidenced by the very simple fact that you can't apply the other discussions and examples that have gone on to your own misbegotten model. The dice are relevant, because they illustrate regression toward the mean as it's mathematically defined as a function of variance and probability. The widget example's relevant because it illustrates the difference between measuring population variance and measuring error. Neither of which you've shown any capability of understanding, fixated as you are in this "measurement error causes regression toward the mean, which is why smart people aren't as smart as they think they are, even though I'm smarter than I think I am and that's not error, so the government should pay me to have smart kids" stupidity.

And even if he got high grades, they'd be in error, since they'd regress toward the mean the next time he took the test...

Though I've been avoiding pointing out the irony in your posts, I'd be remiss in not observing that this statement is coming from a guy who defines "variance" as "error".