Orton's Arm Posted November 1, 2006 Posted November 1, 2006 Damn Blue Fire, if this isn't reason enough to change... 821955[/snapback] Now that I know reverse psychology is this easy to use on you, let me offer you a few suggestions. First, please keep the statistics thread open, because it isn't a flame war at all . . .
Ramius Posted November 4, 2006 Posted November 4, 2006 Now that I know reverse psychology is this easy to use on you, let me offer you a few suggestions. First, please keep the statistics thread open, because it isn't a flame war at all . . . 822474[/snapback] If you would quit saying dumb sh-- and walk away with your tail between your legs like you should, then the thread would die. But instead, you insist on opening your mouth to put your foot in it.
Orton's Arm Posted November 5, 2006 Posted November 5, 2006 If you would quit saying dumb sh-- and walk away with your tail between your legs like you should, then the thread would die. But instead, you insist on opening your mouth to put your foot in it. 824590[/snapback] Walk away with my tail between my legs? You've got to be absolutely joking, right? Are the fact-free insults coming from you and Bungee Jumper supposed to accomplish that? Is it the fact that I have the stronger case? Or is it the fact that neither of you is letting himself get pinned down? Or is it the fact that neither of you supposed statistics experts can understand a very simple concept such as how measurement error can cause the appearance of regression toward the mean? You've made a number of posts in this thread. None of them have had any information content whatsoever. Zero. Nill. Nada. Is behavior like that supposed to make me run away with my tail between my legs? If this was a bar fight, you wouldn't need to use tricky things like facts, or logic. You could just push people around if they disagreed with you, and if you were bigger. Maybe that would suit your personality better. But on a discussion board, facts and logic actually matter, at least up to a point. The facts and logic happen to favor the pro-eugenics side of this debate.
Alaska Darin Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Walk away with my tail between my legs? You've got to be absolutely joking, right? Are the fact-free insults coming from you and Bungee Jumper supposed to accomplish that? Is it the fact that I have the stronger case? Or is it the fact that neither of you is letting himself get pinned down? Or is it the fact that neither of you supposed statistics experts can understand a very simple concept such as how measurement error can cause the appearance of regression toward the mean? You've made a number of posts in this thread. None of them have had any information content whatsoever. Zero. Nill. Nada. Is behavior like that supposed to make me run away with my tail between my legs? If this was a bar fight, you wouldn't need to use tricky things like facts, or logic. You could just push people around if they disagreed with you, and if you were bigger. Maybe that would suit your personality better. But on a discussion board, facts and logic actually matter, at least up to a point. The facts and logic happen to favor the pro-eugenics side of this debate. 824826[/snapback] Just can't stop yourself, can you?
EC-Bills Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Just can't stop yourself, can you? 827023[/snapback] Kinda reminds you of BF looking for attention doesn't it?
Alaska Darin Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Kinda reminds you of BF looking for attention doesn't it? 827027[/snapback] Please, please. Won't you bash me? My mommy didn't hold me when I was small.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Kinda reminds you of BF looking for attention doesn't it? 827027[/snapback] Except BF pretty much knew he was an ignorant ass. He didn't try to hide it like Holcomb's Arm.
EC-Bills Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Except BF pretty much knew he was an ignorant ass. He didn't try to hide it like Holcomb's Arm. 827033[/snapback] Hey I never said it was a perfect correlation. I am sure there are some errors in my analogy in there that will cause it to regress towards the mean.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Hey I never said it was a perfect correlation. I am sure there are some errors in my analogy in there that will cause it to regress towards the mean. 827043[/snapback] STOP PICKING ON HIM! YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ERROR CAUSES REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN! Of course, neither does he...
EC-Bills Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 STOP PICKING ON HIM! YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ERROR CAUSES REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN! Of course, neither does he... 827047[/snapback] You're right. I am a bast... wait, there surely must be something I can omit that will prove my analogy right...
Orton's Arm Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Jesus Christ. You're so !@#$ing dumb, you can't even define "average" properly. And you got it backwards. Your example would illustrate deviation AWAY FROM the mean. 827036[/snapback] I'll respond here, in order to (belatedly) avoid hijacking yet another thread. You are incorrect in saying that my example illustrates regression away from the mean. Here's why. Consider a world in which the following was true: you had a perfect I.Q. test, which gave you the same score every time. Also in this example, the heritability term in the I.Q. equation is now 1. So far, so good--there is no regression toward the mean. But now, keep everything the same, except that you allow your I.Q. test to be flawed. The underlying truth is that if two parents have an average I.Q. of 140, their children will be expected to have I.Q.s that are the same. But as I illustrated in my earlier post, measurement error creates a distorted view of things. So the people who got 140s on the I.Q. test really have an average I.Q. that's somewhat lower. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130 or 135 (available for getting lucky) than there are people with I.Q.s of 150 or 145 available for getting unlucky. So if you have a group of people who all got a 140 on an I.Q. test, the true average I.Q. of that group will be less than 140. If you give that group a second I.Q. test, its true average will make itself clear. But in this case, the second I.Q. test could take the form of those people having kids. The average child from that group will reflect that group's true (130s-style) average, and not its inflated average of 140. "Look!" people might say, "The kids are regressing toward the mean. Why is this?" The reality is that the kids' I.Q.s are, on average, the same as their parents'. It's just that you overestimated how smart those parents were.
Orton's Arm Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 saying something that is completely and utterly wrong repeatedly isnt going to make it right. 827069[/snapback] The fact that you weren't able to understand my example the first time suggests that your natural aptitude for statistics isn't particuarly high, and that none of the training you've received can make up for this.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 I'll respond here, in order to (belatedly) avoid hijacking yet another thread. You are incorrect in saying that my example illustrates regression away from the mean. Here's why. Consider a world in which the following was true: you had a perfect I.Q. test, which gave you the same score every time. Also in this example, the heritability term in the I.Q. equation is now 1. So far, so good--there is no regression toward the mean. But now, keep everything the same, except that you allow your I.Q. test to be flawed. The underlying truth is that if two parents have an average I.Q. of 140, their children will be expected to have I.Q.s that are the same. But as I illustrated in my earlier post, measurement error creates a distorted view of things. So the people who got 140s on the I.Q. test really have an average I.Q. that's somewhat lower. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130 or 135 (available for getting lucky) than there are people with I.Q.s of 150 or 145 available for getting unlucky. So if you have a group of people who all got a 140 on an I.Q. test, the true average I.Q. of that group will be less than 140. If you give that group a second I.Q. test, its true average will make itself clear. But in this case, the second I.Q. test could take the form of those people having kids. The average child from that group will reflect that group's true (130s-style) average, and not its inflated average of 140. "Look!" people might say, "The kids are regressing toward the mean. Why is this?" The reality is that the kids' I.Q.s are, on average, the same as their parents'. It's just that you overestimated how smart those parents were. 827074[/snapback] What you have going on here is what was best expressed by Wolfgang Pauli: "That's not right, that's not even wrong!" What he meant was, when it comes to science, it's possible to be right, it's possible to be wrong, or it's possible to be such an ineffable idiot that you haven't even achieved anything resembling science. An excellent example of this is pretending the number "130" is an acceptable substitute for a gaussian distribution. You're not right, you're not even wrong. I'm going to say this again: DO THE MATH. The actual math. Demonstrate this with a normal distribution. Do not demonstrate it with "130", because "130" IS NOT A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION.
Ramius Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 The fact that you weren't able to understand my example the first time suggests that your natural aptitude for statistics isn't particuarly high, and that none of the training you've received can make up for this. 827094[/snapback] Lets see. You type some sh-- thats completely wrong, with not even a sniff of being right. It gets pointed out as being completely wrong. I point out along with others as well as mainstream science and math that your dumbass statement is wrong. But since i see your statement as wrong, then i "dont have an aptitude for statistics" You're right. I dont have an aptitude for worthless COMPLETELY wrong and asinine statements and statistics. I do have an aptitude for normal, correct statistics, something which you wouldnt understand.
Alaska Darin Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Now that I know reverse psychology is this easy to use on you, let me offer you a few suggestions. First, please keep the statistics thread open, because it isn't a flame war at all . . . 822474[/snapback] Gee, I wonder if it's a flame war because you're just not smart enough to STFU? Hmmmm....
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Gee, I wonder if it's a flame war because you're just not smart enough to STFU? Hmmmm.... 827152[/snapback] No, it's everyone else's fault. Just like it's everyone else that doesn't understand statistics. We're all just a bunch of stastically challenged bullies regressing toward the mean...
Ramius Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 No, it's everyone else's fault. Just like it's everyone else that doesn't understand statistics. We're all just a bunch of stastically challenged bullies regressing toward the mean... 827156[/snapback] If your parents were nuclear physicists, you wouldn't be.
Orton's Arm Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 No, it's everyone else's fault. As opposed to being your own.
Orton's Arm Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Lets see. You type some sh-- thats completely wrong, with not even a sniff of being right. It gets pointed out as being completely wrong. I point out along with others as well as mainstream science and math that your dumbass statement is wrong. I'm sorry, but your statements about measurement error and regression toward the mean don't represent mainstream science. In fact, they don't represent anything more than your own inability to understand the Wikipedia article even after I explained it to you.
Ramius Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 I'm sorry, but your statements about measurement error and regression toward the mean don't represent mainstream science. In fact, they don't represent anything more than your own inability to understand the Wikipedia article even after I explained it to you. 827322[/snapback] Mainstream science, and basically any idiot off the street will tell you that error does NOT cause regression toward the mean. you misunderstood and didnt properly comprehend (hmmm, this seems to be a re-occurring theme in your moronic posts) the wikipedia article in the first place, so you have no right to go quoting it as a reliable source. let me put it simpler. Your explanation was wrong.
Recommended Posts