Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 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] I'm pretty sure you don't speak for mainstream science. And considering I'm published, I'm damn sure I'm more qualified to speak for mainstream science than you are. And mainstream science laughs at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 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. 827113[/snapback] I just finished creating a Monte Carlo simulation. In this simulation, measurement error led to the appearance of regression toward the mean. In other words, I was right. Methodology 1. I created a population of 1000 members. The members were randomly assigned I.Q.s from a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. I set trueIQ =norminv(rand(),100,10) 2. To obtain a given population member's measured I.Q., I applied an error function to each member's true I.Q. The error function was random and normally distributed, with a mean value of zero and a standard deviation of 2.5. I set measured IQ =trueIQ+norminv(rand(),0,2.5) 3. I arbitrarily defined a threshold of 115. Those members with measured I.Q.s below the threshold were ignored. =if(measuredIQ>threshold,1,0) 4. Members with measured I.Q.s above the threshold were subjected to a second measurement. The second measurement was the original I.Q. plus a random, normally distriubted error function with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 2.5. =trueIQ+norminv(rand(),0,2.5) 5. I compared the results that threshold members obtained from the second test with those obtained from the first test. I pressed F9 at least ten times. Each time, the average score for threshold members was worse the second time they "took the test" than it was the first time. In other words, those who did well on an I.Q. test appeared to regress toward the mean when tested a second time. The sole source for this regression toward the mean was measurement error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 And considering I'm published, 827394[/snapback] NAMBLA website? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I just finished creating a Monte Carlo simulation. In this simulation, measurement error led to the appearance of regression toward the mean. In other words, I was right. Methodology 1. I created a population of 1000 members. The members were randomly assigned I.Q.s from a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 10. I set trueIQ =norminv(rand(),100,10) 2. To obtain a given population member's measured I.Q., I applied an error function to each member's true I.Q. The error function was random and normally distributed, with a mean value of zero and a standard deviation of 2.5. I set measured IQ =trueIQ+norminv(rand(),0,2.5) 3. I arbitrarily defined a threshold of 115. Those members with measured I.Q.s below the threshold were ignored. =if(measuredIQ>threshold,1,0) 4. Members with measured I.Q.s above the threshold were subjected to a second measurement. The second measurement was the original I.Q. plus a random, normally distriubted error function with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 2.5. =trueIQ+norminv(rand(),0,2.5) 5. I compared the results that threshold members obtained from the second test with those obtained from the first test. I pressed F9 at least ten times. Each time, the average score for threshold members was worse the second time they "took the test" than it was the first time. In other words, those who did well on an I.Q. test appeared to regress toward the mean when tested a second time. The sole source for this regression toward the mean was measurement error. 827404[/snapback] That is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. Do you have ANY idea how many different ways you !@#$ed that up? sh--, you didn't even measure the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 That is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time. Do you have ANY idea how many different ways you !@#$ed that up? sh--, you didn't even measure the right thing. 827444[/snapback] I knew that if I did the math that a) I'd be proven right, and b) you'd choose to ignore this proof, regardless of its strength. I was right on both counts. My Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that people who have substantially above-average scores on an I.Q. test will tend to have somewhat less impressive performances if they take the test a second time. The reasons for this are explained in the Wikipedia article, as well as in my earlier posts on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I knew that if I did the math that a) I'd be proven right, and b) you'd choose to ignore this proof, regardless of its strength. I was right on both counts. My Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that people who have substantially above-average scores on an I.Q. test will tend to have somewhat less impressive performances if they take the test a second time. The reasons for this are explained in the Wikipedia article, as well as in my earlier posts on this issue. 827490[/snapback] Just can't STFU, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 NAMBLA website? 827410[/snapback] Don't judge him strictly based on his performance in the discussion about regression toward the mean discussion. He (and for that matter Ramius) have, perhaps demonstrated greater levels of competence in their regular professional lives than they have on this issue. If they haven't, they deserve to be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I knew that if I did the math that a) I'd be proven right, and b) you'd choose to ignore this proof, regardless of its strength. I was right on both counts. I knew that if you tried to do the math, you'd !@#$ it all up and not know it. I was right on both counts. My Monte Carlo simulation demonstrates that people who have substantially above-average scores on an I.Q. test will tend to have somewhat less impressive performances if they take the test a second time. The reasons for this are explained in the Wikipedia article, as well as in my earlier posts on this issue. 827490[/snapback] Of course, you didn't model what the Wikipedia article was talking about...or what you've been talking about...or regression toward the mean...in fact, you didn't model anything even remotely useful; you'd have gotten more valid statistical results from a bowl of soup. But hey, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Just can't STFU, can you? 827499[/snapback] What on earth is this a response to? Bungee Jumper wouldn't accept my explanation of regression toward the mean until I did the math. Well guess what? I did the math, and I was right. He and Ramius have so much egg on their faces they'll probably die of cholesterol poisoning, and I'm the one who's supposed to keep his mouth shut? Not likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 What on earth is this a response to? Bungee Jumper wouldn't accept my explanation of regression toward the mean until I did the math. Well guess what? I did the math, and I was right. He and Ramius have so much egg on their faces they'll probably die of cholesterol poisoning, and I'm the one who's supposed to keep his mouth shut? Not likely. 827516[/snapback] How the hell do you ever believe that you did the math right? It took me three seconds to find the fundamental flaw in your "simulation". Namely, that you simulated the wrong !@#$ing thing, you idiot! And even then, you still didn't do it right. I'm laughing so hard, I can barely type...seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 How the hell do you ever believe that you did the math right? It took me three seconds to find the fundamental flaw in your "simulation". Namely, that you simulated the wrong !@#$ing thing, you idiot! And even then, you still didn't do it right. I'm laughing so hard, I can barely type...seriously... 827524[/snapback] And yet, you keep fighting him on this. Who is having the last laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 And yet, you keep fighting him on this.Who is having the last laugh? 827525[/snapback] I am. This is high comedy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I am. This is high comedy... 827533[/snapback] How in the hell did this evolve to 13 pages? HA must be a troll, and you guys are feeding into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 How the hell do you ever believe that you did the math right? It took me three seconds to find the fundamental flaw in your "simulation". Namely, that you simulated the wrong !@#$ing thing, you idiot! And even then, you still didn't do it right. I'm laughing so hard, I can barely type...seriously... 827524[/snapback] Your post is absurd. The phenomenon I simulated is the same one I described earlier with words. Either a) you didn't understand my words, b) you didn't understand my simulation, c) you didn't understand either the words or the simulation, or d) you realize you're wrong but don't want to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 How in the hell did this evolve to 13 pages? HA must be a troll, and you guys are feeding into it. 827536[/snapback] A troll is someone who makes inflammatory comments while providing little or no evidence with which to back them up. Much like Bungee Jumper has been doing these last 13 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 How in the hell did this evolve to 13 pages? HA must be a troll, and you guys are feeding into it. 827536[/snapback] No, I actually think he's serious. It's damned hard to be that stupid, that consistently, for thirteen pages (although, including the other threads, it's closer to 25) intentionally. I honestly think he believes he knows what he's talking about...which is what makes it so damned funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 It's damned hard to be that stupid, that consistently, for thirteen pages You should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Your post is absurd. The phenomenon I simulated is the same one I described earlier with words. Either a) you didn't understand my words, b) you didn't understand my simulation, c) you didn't understand either, or d) you realize you're wrong but don't want to admit it. 827538[/snapback] You measured "regression toward the mean" as a function of error when the same people take the same test multiple times. Now read very carefully, the next part is very important: YOU MEASURED THE WRONG MEASURABLE. And even beyond that, your math was all sorts of !@#$ed up...but let's deal with the bigger issue of understanding the actual problem first: even if we presume the stated Wikipedia equation is correct (it's not, as I explained earlier), and even if we presume your definition of "heritability" as used in that equation is correct (it's not, for reasons you've already established you can't begin to understand), and even if we assume IQ is an adequate measurable (it's not, which is why not even the studies you've quoted use it)m none of it has anything to do with the same people taking IQ tests more than once. You're measuring the variance between multiple instances of the same thing - a person's IQ test. You're SUPPOSED to be measuring the variance between individual instances of different things - parents' and children's IQs. Basically, you simulated the wrong thing. You spectacularly !@#$ed up the problem. I can't wait to share this one with the statisticians at work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 You should know. 827552[/snapback] What I don't know is how you make it look so damned easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I can't wait to share this one with the statisticians at work... 827559[/snapback] Please don't tell me you talk about TBD at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts