The subject of statistics

[Bungee Jumper]

Given that some people appear to have had difficulty understanding the point I was making, I'll express my thoughts on regression toward the mean in simpler, easier to understand terms.

 

Consider an I.Q. test. 60% of the people who take the test get the correct score. 20% get lucky, and score 10 points higher than they should. 20% get unlucky, and score 10 points lower than they should.

 

Now imagine a room filled with people who scored a 140 on the test. Most of those people will indeed have I.Q.s of 140. But some of the people will have I.Q.s of 150, but who due to bad luck scored 10 points lower than they should have. There will be people in this room with I.Q.s of 130, but who through good luck scored a 140 on the test. Because there are a lot more people with I.Q.s of 130 than there are with I.Q.s of 150, the lucky 130s in the room will significantly outnumber the unlucky 150s. Therefore, the average intelligence of the people in the room will be lower than the 140 you measured.

 

Suppose you were to ask everyone in the room to take a second I.Q. test. You'd expect the number of lucky people to balance out the number of unlucky people. Once you'd finished averaging the results of the second test, you'd know the true average I.Q. for the people in the room. That true average will be lower than 140. This is what the Wikipedia article meant when it described regression toward the mean.

 

What did I mean when I wrote that regression toward the mean could be caused by error in measurement? Suppose that the expected value of a child's intelligence is the average of the two parents' I.Q.s. Now suppose that the people in the I.Q. 140 room had been kept there so long they started having kids with each other. Based on the I.Q. tests those people took, you'd expect their kids to have I.Q.s of 140. That was the measured I.Q. But the true average I.Q. in that room is lower--perhaps 135. Once those people's children start taking I.Q. tests, those children will get an average score of 135.

 

This is what Weiss meant when he pointed out that measurement error could explain regression toward the mean.

823418[/snapback]

 

Thanks for clarifying that when you said "regression toward the mean" and "error" were the same thing, you actually meant that "regression toward the mean" and "error" are the same thing.

 

Although this explanation does further clarify that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about. That's not an example of error causing regression toward the mean. That's an example of error causing error.

 

It's an even better example of error causing error causing error - because that is the worst example of the evolution of a statistical distribution I've ever seen. You really suck as a statistician. Seriously. You're horrible. You have the math skills of a mollusk. My fingernail clippings have a better knowledge of genetics than you do. You can't even distinguish between the mean of a distribution and a discrete value, you don't know the difference between error and regression, you think "heritability" as "inheritability" are the same damn thing. Your only source is an egregiously unscientific paper on the career choices of East German children which is so incomplete that even the author of the paper admits it. And yet, you still insist that you're right and the entire !@#$ing scientific world is wrong.

 

I pity you.

[Orton's Arm]

Thanks for clarifying that when you said "regression toward the mean" and "error" were the same thing, you actually meant that "regression toward the mean" and "error" are the same thing.

 

Although this explanation does further clarify that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about.  That's not an example of error causing regression toward the mean.  That's an example of error causing error. 

 

It's an even better example of error causing error causing error - because that is the worst example of the evolution of a statistical distribution I've ever seen.  You really suck as a statistician.  Seriously.  You're horrible.  You have the math skills of a mollusk.  My fingernail clippings have a better knowledge of genetics than you do.  You can't even distinguish between the mean of a distribution and a discrete value, you don't know the difference between error and regression, you think "heritability" as "inheritability" are the same damn thing.  Your only source is an egregiously unscientific paper on the career choices of East German children which is so incomplete that even the author of the paper admits it.  And yet, you still insist that you're right and the entire !@#$ing scientific world is wrong. 

 

I pity you.

823445[/snapback]

Is it that time of month? Because you've managed to do the following:

- Miss the whole point about regression toward the mean article and my follow-up example. Weiss obviously understands that point. Why don't you?

- Use the simplified example I provided to imply (falsely) that I was unable to conceptualize more statistically realistic examples.

- Once again attempt to create confusion about the word "heritability"

- Falsely claim that my only source is Weiss, when I've cited other sources to butress my case. In fact, I don't need Weiss at all--the formula in the article, together with the American Psychological Association's determination that heritability is about 0.75, are enough.

- Falsely claimed that I don't know the difference between error and regression. Then you failed to provide any support for this baseless claim. Come to think of it, you failed to provide support for any of the accusations you made against me. The heritability accusation. The genetics accusation. The mean/discrete value accusation.

- Represented yourself as speaking for the entire scientific community, when in fact you speak only for yourself.

- Oh, and one last thing: Weiss's paper wasn't about the career choices of East German children.

 

In fact, I couldn't find a single true statement in your entire post. Not one. Are you trying to create this much confusion about what's actually a fairly simple issue?

[Ramius]

Thanks for clarifying that when you said "regression toward the mean" and "error" were the same thing, you actually meant that "regression toward the mean" and "error" are the same thing.

 

Although this explanation does further clarify that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about.  That's not an example of error causing regression toward the mean.  That's an example of error causing error. 

 

It's an even better example of error causing error causing error - because that is the worst example of the evolution of a statistical distribution I've ever seen.  You really suck as a statistician.  Seriously.  You're horrible.  You have the math skills of a mollusk.  My fingernail clippings have a better knowledge of genetics than you do.  You can't even distinguish between the mean of a distribution and a discrete value, you don't know the difference between error and regression, you think "heritability" as "inheritability" are the same damn thing.  Your only source is an egregiously unscientific paper on the career choices of East German children which is so incomplete that even the author of the paper admits it.  And yet, you still insist that you're right and the entire !@#$ing scientific world is wrong. 

 

I pity you.

823445[/snapback]

 

its worthless. obviously he's right, and thousands of scientists are wrong. HIS definitions are correct, not the ones established by the scientific community.

 

The stupidity level of his posts are appalling.

[Ramius]

Is it that time of month? Because you've managed to do the following:

- Miss the whole point about regression toward the mean article and my follow-up example. Weiss obviously understands that point. Why don't you?

- Use the simplified example I provided to imply (falsely) that I was unable to conceptualize more statistically realistic examples.

- Once again attempt to create confusion about the word "heritability"

- Falsely claim that my only source is Weiss, when I've cited other sources to butress my case. In fact, I don't need Weiss at all--the formula in the article, together with the American Psychological Association's determination that heritability is about 0.75, are enough.

- Falsely claimed that I don't know the difference between error and regression. Then you failed to provide any support for this baseless claim. Come to think of it, you failed to provide support for any of the accusations you made against me. The heritability accusation. The genetics accusation. The mean/discrete value accusation.

- Represented yourself as speaking for the entire scientific community, when in fact you speak only for yourself.

- Oh, and one last thing: Weiss's paper wasn't about the career choices of East German children.

 

In fact, I couldn't find a single true statement in your entire post. Not one. Are you trying to create this much confusion about what's actually a fairly simple issue?

823457[/snapback]

 

actually, what jumper said was dead on. You still dont understand the concept that error and regrression toward the mean are 2 different things, and that ERROR DOESNT CAUSE REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN!

 

And once again you display your complete inability to understand that heritability and inheritability are completely different genetic things.

[Bungee Jumper]

Is it that time of month? Because you've managed to do the following:

- Miss the whole point about regression toward the mean article and my follow-up example. Weiss obviously understands that point. Why don't you?

- Use the simplified example I provided to imply (falsely) that I was unable to conceptualize more statistically realistic examples.

- Once again attempt to create confusion about the word "heritability"

- Falsely claim that my only source is Weiss, when I've cited other sources to butress my case. In fact, I don't need Weiss at all--the formula in the article, together with the American Psychological Association's determination that heritability is about 0.75, are enough.

- Falsely claimed that I don't know the difference between error and regression. Then you failed to provide any support for this baseless claim. Come to think of it, you failed to provide support for any of the accusations you made against me. The heritability accusation. The genetics accusation. The mean/discrete value accusation.

- Represented yourself as speaking for the entire scientific community, when in fact you speak only for yourself.

- Oh, and one last thing: Weiss's paper wasn't about the career choices of East German children.

 

In fact, I couldn't find a single true statement in your entire post. Not one. Are you trying to create this much confusion about what's actually a fairly simple issue?

823457[/snapback]

 

My support is a couple centuries of math, physics, and biology research establishing the fields of statistics and genetics. You actually want me to quote an article that says regression toward the mean isn't error? There is none...because it's understood. If you want a source for the difference between heritability and inheritability...start with Merriam-!@#$ing-Webster, you loon.

 

In fact, your own sources contradict you. I know. I've read them. They don't say what you think they say. You simply don't know how to read them.

 

 

the formula in the article, together with the American Psychological Association's determination that heritability is about 0.75, are enough.

 

That's because you haven't done the math. Do. The. Math. Do it properly, using a gaussian distribution for the means instead of discrete values. You'll find the equation indicates the exact opposite of what you think it indicates.

[erynthered]

This thread should be pinned.

[Chilly]

Amazingly enough, in my history class today we were talking about an essay named "Battle of the Sexes", where one guy claimed that while working was a victory for women, it was decreasing the rate of birth for educated women, therefore causing harm to society.

 

Of course, as soon as our TA talked about that, he mentioned how retarded and unsupported of an idea it was.

[GG]

Amazingly enough, in my history class today we were talking about an essay named "Battle of the Sexes", where one guy claimed that while working was a victory for women, it was decreasing the rate of birth for educated women, therefore causing harm to society.

 

Of course, as soon as our TA talked about that, he mentioned how retarded and unsupported of an idea it was.

823965[/snapback]

 

At a 50,000 foot level there is some validity to that (which is no where near HA's point of paying stupid women to tie their tubes and having smart women romping at will)

 

Low birth rates in highly developed countries are worrisome, as it will present a demographic and economic problem since you are not replenishing the population. Ideally, you'd like birth rates >2. Many industrialized nations are under 2, and that's a problem.

[Bungee Jumper]

Amazingly enough, in my history class today we were talking about an essay named "Battle of the Sexes", where one guy claimed that while working was a victory for women, it was decreasing the rate of birth for educated women, therefore causing harm to society.

 

Of course, as soon as our TA talked about that, he mentioned how retarded and unsupported of an idea it was.

823965[/snapback]

 

Note to Holcomb's Arm: the above DOES NOT PROVE YOUR POINT!!! It's anecdotal, not scientific. Don't use it as a supporting argument.

[Chilly]

Note to Holcomb's Arm: the above DOES NOT PROVE YOUR POINT!!!  It's anecdotal, not scientific.  Don't use it as a supporting argument.

823976[/snapback]

 

What was funny was that we had a big discussion on the validity of the statistics in the essay. He mentions that the birth rate decreased, but doesn't say how it decreased or what it decreased from.

 

As it turns out, he was practicing HA's brand of statistics.

[Taro T]

Given that some people appear to have had difficulty understanding the point I was making, I'll express my thoughts on regression toward the mean in simpler, easier to understand terms.

 

Consider an I.Q. test. 60% of the people who take the test get the correct score. 20% get lucky, and score 10 points higher than they should. 20% get unlucky, and score 10 points lower than they should.

 

Now imagine a room filled with people who scored a 140 on the test. Most of those people will indeed have I.Q.s of 140. But some of the people will have I.Q.s of 150, but who due to bad luck scored 10 points lower than they should have. There will be people in this room with I.Q.s of 130, but who through good luck scored a 140 on the test. Because there are a lot more people with I.Q.s of 130 than there are with I.Q.s of 150, the lucky 130s in the room will significantly outnumber the unlucky 150s. Therefore, the average intelligence of the people in the room will be lower than the 140 you measured.

 

Suppose you were to ask everyone in the room to take a second I.Q. test. You'd expect the number of lucky people to balance out the number of unlucky people. Once you'd finished averaging the results of the second test, you'd know the true average I.Q. for the people in the room. That true average will be lower than 140. This is what the Wikipedia article meant when it described regression toward the mean.

 

What did I mean when I wrote that regression toward the mean could be caused by error in measurement? Suppose that the expected value of a child's intelligence is the average of the two parents' I.Q.s. Now suppose that the people in the I.Q. 140 room had been kept there so long they started having kids with each other. Based on the I.Q. tests those people took, you'd expect their kids to have I.Q.s of 140. That was the measured I.Q. But the true average I.Q. in that room is lower--perhaps 135. Once those people's children start taking I.Q. tests, those children will get an average score of 135.

 

This is what Weiss meant when he pointed out that measurement error could explain regression toward the mean.

823418[/snapback]

HA, I now understand why you think that error could cause regression to the mean, but unfortunately your assumptions and understanding are not well founded. Using additional sources besides Wiki might help you in your search for an improved understanding of statistics.

[Orton's Arm]

HA, I now understand why you think that error could cause regression to the mean, but unfortunately your assumptions and understanding are not well founded.  Using additional sources besides Wiki might help you in your search for an improved understanding of statistics.

824080[/snapback]

I put a greater level of faith in that Wiki article than I do in either Ramius or Bungee Jumper. I feel the latter two are entirely too willing to allow their feelings about me to distort their posts about statistics. For example, Ramius came to the defense of syhuang; despite the fact that syhuang's attack against me was an embarrassment to syhuang.

 

I don't see any flaw with the logic of the Wikipedia article. Bungee Jumper and Ramius can be as arrogant and pompous as they choose, but their emotions--no matter how strongly held--are not a substitute for logic. Their unsupported statements are not a substitute for statements about logic. They claim to speak for the scientific community; but are actually treating this discussion in an entirely unscientific fashion. They're assuming that genes are innocent of affecting intelligence until proven guilty. The spirit of science is not to make assumptions one way or the other. Then, when I found a document showing that genes do affect intelligence, they proceeded to question whether a parent's intelligence really is passed along to the child. These questions, by the way, were driven by Bungee Jumper's own misunderstanding of heritability. Its true definition is mathematical, and is one of the terms of the equation that predicts a child's intelligence. There is no doubt that intelligent parents are more likely to have intelligent children than are less intelligent parents. The fact that both Bungee Jumper and Ramius have appeared to ridicule this concept shows their partisanship rises above their respect for objective truth.

 

To return to the Wikipedia article. None of those attacking its explanation of regression toward the mean were able to identify a flaw with its logic. I'm confident there is no flaw. I'm also confident that if Ramius and Bungee Jumper took a little time to stop celebrating themselves for being so well-credentialed; and actually thought about what the article was trying to say, they'd realize it was correct. Whoever wrote that article may well know more about statistics than either of them.

[Bungee Jumper]

I put a greater level of faith in that Wiki article than I do in either Ramius or Bungee Jumper. I feel the latter two are entirely too willing to allow their feelings about me to distort their posts about statistics. For example, Ramius came to the defense of syhuang; despite the fact that syhuang's attack against me was an embarrassment to syhuang.

 

I don't see any flaw with the logic of the Wikipedia article. Bungee Jumper and Ramius can be as arrogant and pompous as they choose, but their emotions--no matter how strongly held--are not a substitute for logic. Their unsupported statements are not a substitute for statements about logic. They claim to speak for the scientific community; but are actually treating this discussion in an entirely unscientific fashion. They're assuming that genes are innocent of affecting intelligence until proven guilty. The spirit of science is not to make assumptions one way or the other. Then, when I found a document showing that genes do affect intelligence, they proceeded to question whether a parent's intelligence really is passed along to the child. These questions, by the way, were driven by Bungee Jumper's own misunderstanding of heritability. Its true definition is mathematical, and is one of the terms of the equation that predicts a child's intelligence. There is no doubt that intelligent parents are more likely to have intelligent children than are less intelligent parents. The fact that both Bungee Jumper and Ramius have appeared to ridicule this concept shows their partisanship rises above their respect for objective truth.

 

To return to the Wikipedia article. None of those attacking its explanation of regression toward the mean were able to identify a flaw with its logic. I'm confident there is no flaw. I'm also confident that if Ramius and Bungee Jumper took a little time to stop celebrating themselves for being so well-credentialed; and actually thought about what the article was trying to say, they'd realize it was correct. Whoever wrote that article may well know more about statistics than either of them.

824537[/snapback]

 

Holy sh--, you're an idiot. You haven't paid any attention to anything anyone's said.l

[EC-Bills]

I put a greater level of faith in that Wiki article...

824537[/snapback]

 

You have violated the first rule of holes: when you are in one, stop digging.

[Orton's Arm]

Holy sh--, you're an idiot.  You haven't paid any attention to anything anyone's said.l

824550[/snapback]

Maybe you should a) spend a little less time throwing insults my way and b) spend a little more time actually explaining what you mean. Instead, you've been hiding behind statements like "you don't understand X." If you feel communication errors have taken place, and you want someone to blame, maybe you should start by looking in the mirror.

[Orton's Arm]

You have violated the first rule of holes: when you are in one, stop digging.

824551[/snapback]

You don't think it's possible that a Wikipedia contributor just might know more about statistics than either Ramius or Bungee Jumper? If you think that possibility is zero, then so is your own knowledge of statistics.

[Ramius]

You don't think it's possible that a Wikipedia contributor just might know more about statistics than either Ramius or Bungee Jumper?    If you think that possibility is zero, then so is your own knowledge of statistics. 

824555[/snapback]

 

Lets see. Any ignoramus that can log onto the internet can post a wikipedia article. For all we know, your dumb ass wrote the article and then tried to quote it.

 

Secondly, way to misrepresent and fail to understand anything either me or bungee have said in your eugenics thread. But then again, thats your forte, omitting data/arguements, and changing words to fit your assinine arguement, no matter how ridiculous. No one is saying that genetics dont contribute to intelligence. Way to pull that one out of your ass. I'm not even going to bother trying to explain intelligence to you, because a) you have none, and b) you lack the reading comprehension and general analysis skills to even begin to understand what the hell i am talking about.

 

Thirdly, the articles that you have been furiously masturbating over actually dispell your arguement. But you are too dense to understand the concepts presented and comprehend what the articles are about.

 

But way to try and sound like you are being the reasonable one here.

 

You are definitely a grade A dipshit.

[syhuang]

For example, Ramius came to the defense of syhuang; despite the fact that syhuang's attack against me was an embarrassment to syhuang.

824537[/snapback]

I can't believe this thread lasts this long. However, I'm not surprised to find HA is hiding here and crying about being pointed out that he manipulated stats by his problematic, prematured, and biased method. It seems like someone needs to be reminded one more time:

 

Everyone can create any numbers he likes with a prematured system:

 

(1) Create his own rules to omit the stats he doesn't want

(2) Pick the threshold to favor him most

(3) Use personal judgement to retain the stats which should be ommitted by different thresholds based on his rules

(4) Simplify the whole system to help his argument

(5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion

 

These manufactured numbers are useless and show nothing more than "I think".

[EC-Bills]

You know, I think the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

[Bungee Jumper]

Maybe you should a) spend a little less time throwing insults my way and b) spend a little more time actually explaining what you mean. Instead, you've been hiding behind statements like "you don't understand X." If you feel communication errors have taken place, and you want someone to blame, maybe you should start by looking in the mirror.

824553[/snapback]

 

No one else seems to have a problem understanding what I'm saying. Just you.

 

So the problem must be me.