The subject of statistics

[ExiledInIllinois]

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.

824578[/snapback]

 

Bingo!

 

Now tie that into the "socialism" thread...

 

Quite a lib that Daniel P...

 

[Orton's Arm]

So the problem must be me. 

824633[/snapback]

It usually is.

[Orton's Arm]

Secondly, way to misrepresent and fail to understand anything either me or bungee have said in your eugenics thread.

Your posts have been 1% explanation, 99% insult. Other than the fact I'm being insulted, there is very little in your posts for me to understand. Bungee Jumper is a little better, but he typically likes to avoid being pinned down. "You don't understand heritability," he'll say, without committing himself to either a) a definition of the word, b) where he thinks I've misunderstood the term, or c) an explanation of how this affects the discussion. How is someone reading this thread possibly supposed to learn anything from a post like that? The only message either you or Bungee Jumper are trying to send is that people should disagree with me even if they don't exactly know why. That's fine for people who like to be led, but it might be frustrating for those who like to know the reasons for what they believe.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

824578[/snapback]

Is this why you've been so consistent in ignoring facts?

[Bungee Jumper]

Your posts have been 1% explanation, 99% insult. Other than the fact I'm being insulted, there is very little in your posts for me to understand. Bungee Jumper is a little better, but he typically likes to avoid being pinned down. "You don't understand heritability," he'll say, without committing himself to either a) a definition of the word, b) where he thinks I've misunderstood the term, or c) an explanation of how this affects the discussion. How is someone reading this thread possibly supposed to learn anything from a post like that? The only message either you or Bungee Jumper are trying to send is that people should disagree with me even if they don't exactly know why. That's fine for people who like to be led, but it might be frustrating for those who like to know the reasons for what they believe.

824822[/snapback]

 

Committing myself to a definition of heritability? There is only one definition, and I'm committed to it. You're the one that keeps changing it to mean "inheritability", if and when it suits you. Likewise "error" and "regression towards the mean". You consistently lie, cheat, and manipulate to try to get your way; you're just upset now that you're being called out on it by a number of people who know far more about it than you.

 

And like I said before, I've been very clear about my disagreement with your nonsense. You're the only one that's expressed any confusion. Why do you think that is?

[EC-Bills]

Is this why you've been so consistent in ignoring facts?

824824[/snapback]

Right. Just because I don't live in your bizarro universe, I ignore facts.

[Orton's Arm]

Committing myself to a definition of heritability?  There is only one definition, and I'm committed to it.  You're the one that keeps changing it to mean "inheritability", if and when it suits you.  Likewise "error" and "regression towards the mean".  You consistently lie, cheat, and manipulate to try to get your way; you're just upset now that you're being called out on it by a number of people who know far more about it than you.

 

And like I said before, I've been very clear about my disagreement with your nonsense.  You're the only one that's expressed any confusion.  Why do you think that is?

824915[/snapback]

While your post doesn't contain a single word of truth, it does contain varying degrees of falsehood. First, the definition of heritability is mathematical, and has to do with the extent to which a trait is passed from parent to child. It's one of the terms in the equation about which we're arguing. You haven't demonstrated consistent commitment to this definition, as shown by the confusion you tried to create about whether intelligence was passed from parent to child.

 

Secondly, I provided an example of how measurement error can cause the appearence of regression toward the mean. If you don't understand the example, I'll be happy to explain it again. If you feel you understand it but don't agree with it, I'd be happy to listen to whichever legitimate reasons you feel you may have for having disagreed. You were too busy insulting me to mention any such reasons.

 

Thirdly, you accused me of lying, cheating, and manipulating to get my way. After lying about my knowledge of statistics, I'm amazed you have the nerve to accuse me of dishonesty. Then again, Lenin said to always accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty. Maybe that's what you're doing here.

 

Fourth, you claim that you know much more about this subject than I do. I have yet to see evidence of this claim. You repeatedly demanded that I provide evidence of a link between smart parents and smart children. You would look equally silly if you'd a) refused to see a link between smoking and cancer until I'd shown you evidence, b) ignored the evidence once it was presented, and c) represented yourself as a health expert.

 

Fifth, I think that a lot of people probably are confused by exactly what meaning (if any) you're trying to hide between insults. But some people may not want to ask questions because they assume (falsely) that you know what on earth you're talking about, and that the issue is settled. Others may be more curious, but might be too afraid of seeming foolish to speak up. Then there are those who wisely stopped reading this thread once you made it into a flame war. Because in general, it's good for questions about science or statistics to get decided by flame wars.

[Bungee Jumper]

While your post doesn't contain a single word of truth, it does contain varying degrees of falsehood. First, the definition of heritability is mathematical, and has to do with the extent to which a trait is passed from parent to child.

826300[/snapback]

 

That is exactly what I'm talking about: that is the definition of inheritability. "Heritability" is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

[Orton's Arm]

That is exactly what I'm talking about: that is the definition of inheritability.  "Heritability" is something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 

826649[/snapback]

You need to go back and reread the I.Q. equation, and surrounding text. Here it is

The heritability of IQ measures the extent to which the IQ of children appears to be influenced by the IQ of parents. Because the heritability of IQ is less than 100%, the IQ of children tends to "regress" towards the mean IQ of the population. That is, high IQ parents tend to have children who are less bright than their parents, whereas low IQ parents tend to have children who are brighter than their parents. The effect can be quantified by the equation y = x + h^2 ( {m + f}/2 - x ) where

 

    * y is the predicted average IQ of the children;

    * x is the mean IQ of the population to which the parents belong;

    * h^2 is the heritability of IQ;

    * m and f are the IQs of the mother and father, respectively. [17]

 

Thus, if the heritability of IQ is 50%, a couple averaging an IQ of 120 may have children that average around an IQ of 110, assuming that both parents come from a population with a median IQ of 100.

[Bungee Jumper]

You need to go back and reread the I.Q. equation, and surrounding text. Here it is

826911[/snapback]

 

 

And that's wrong. Just because Wikipedia's incorrect definition of "heritability" matches your incorrect definition of "heritability", doesn't make it right.

[Ramius]

While your post doesn't contain a single word of truth, it does contain varying degrees of falsehood. First, the definition of heritability is mathematical, and has to do with the extent to which a trait is passed from parent to child. It's one of the terms in the equation about which we're arguing. You haven't demonstrated consistent commitment to this definition, as shown by the confusion you tried to create about whether intelligence was passed from parent to child.

 

Secondly, I provided an example of how measurement error can cause the appearence of regression toward the mean. If you don't understand the example, I'll be happy to explain it again. If you feel you understand it but don't agree with it, I'd be happy to listen to whichever legitimate reasons you feel you may have for having disagreed. You were too busy insulting me to mention any such reasons.

 

Thirdly, you accused me of lying, cheating, and manipulating to get my way. After lying about my knowledge of statistics, I'm amazed you have the nerve to accuse me of dishonesty. Then again, Lenin said to always accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty. Maybe that's what you're doing here.

 

Fourth, you claim that you know much more about this subject than I do. I have yet to see evidence of this claim. You repeatedly demanded that I provide evidence of a link between smart parents and smart children. You would look equally silly if you'd a) refused to see a link between smoking and cancer until I'd shown you evidence, b) ignored the evidence once it was presented, and c) represented yourself as a health expert.

 

Fifth, I think that a lot of people probably are confused by exactly what meaning (if any) you're trying to hide between insults. But some people may not want to ask questions because they assume (falsely) that you know what on earth you're talking about, and that the issue is settled. Others may be more curious, but might be too afraid of seeming foolish to speak up. Then there are those who wisely stopped reading this thread once you made it into a flame war. Because in general, it's good for questions about science or statistics to get decided by flame wars. 

826300[/snapback]

 

This might be your best, and by best i mean most ill-thought out moronic and retarded, post yet. once again you show you lack even the basic levels of reading comprehension, as you have with every single post here.

 

You unprecedented level of stupidity displayed over the past few weeks has got me thinking. Given your complete inability to understand even the most basic concepts of genetics and the most basic concepts of statistics, i think that a career change is in order. Quit your job now, whatever it is (i pray is doesnt involve biology or anything even relating to numbers) and join up with a scientific research group. You should become a case study.

 

A case study of your incompetence would be astounding. You have that "once-in-a-lifetime" kind of lack of intelligence. Please, let someone study you so we can find you what exactly makes you this ignorant and plain out dumb. Entire textbooks could be written on your stupidity. You could provide enough data to allow at LEAST a dozen grad students to write their theses. You could find your name in the textbooks next to the likes of phineas gage. "Holcomb's Arm: Dumbest person ever?" You could compete with rats, mice, rabbits, etc in basic tests of intelligence to find out just how poorly you could perform. It would be doing society a greater good.

 

Frankly, i am tempted to contact the NSF to acquire the funding for such a study. I wouldnt even have to file a formal grant application. I could simply print out your posts from here, and they'd award me millions in grant money.

[GG]

"Holcomb's Arm: Dumbest person ever?"

 

826944[/snapback]

 

Could be, unless he's 400 lbs and has one leg.

 

 

But I doubt that highly.

[Orton's Arm]

And that's wrong.  Just because Wikipedia's incorrect definition of "heritability" matches your incorrect definition of "heritability", doesn't make it right.

826930[/snapback]

I did some more research, and it turns out the word "heritability" has two definitions. There's "broad sense heritability" which is the definition you seem to have in mind, as well as "narrow sense heritability" which is the way the word was being used in the Wikipedia article and equation. "Broad sense heritability" is represented by a capital H^2, while "narrow sense heritability" is represented by a lower-case h^2.

 

The American Psychological Association used the term "heritability" in the narrow, lower-case h sense in its response to the Bell Curve controversy

In the case of IQ, h^2 is markedly lower for children (about .45) than for adults (about .75). This means that as children grow up, differences in test scores tend increasingly to reflect differences in genotype and in individual life experience rather than differences among the families in which they were raised.

In other words, the American Psychological Association is saying that parental intelligence predicts 75% of a child's I.Q., with the remaining 25% predicted by the intelligence of the child's relevant population group.

[Bungee Jumper]

I did some more research

 

"Some more"? You never did any before this. Still haven't; "answer.com" isn't research. Go to a !@#$ing library

 

, and it turns out the word "heritability" has two definitions. There's "broad sense heritability" which is the definition you seem to have in mind, as well as "narrow sense heritability" which is the way the word was being used in the Wikipedia article and equation. "Broad sense heritability" is represented by a capital H^2, while "narrow sense heritability" is represented by a lower-case h^2.

 

No, I'm using the first definition, ignoring the second, and you're making up a third. Nothing in there matches your fantastical little idiot-definition.

 

The American Psychological Association used the term "heritability" in the narrow,

lower-case h sense in its response to the Bell Curve controversy

In the case of IQ, h^2 is markedly lower for children (about .45) than for adults (about .75). This means that as children grow up, differences in test scores tend increasingly to reflect differences in genotype and in individual life experience rather than differences among the families in which they were raised.

826977[/snapback]

 

Your half-assed ignorant misunderstanding is what happens when you cherry-pick things out of context that you think support your case. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, YOU !@#$ING MORON!

[Orton's Arm]

"Some more"?    You never did any before this.  Still haven't; "answer.com" isn't research.  Go to a !@#$ing library

No, I'm using the first definition, ignoring the second, and you're making up a third.  Nothing in there matches your fantastical little idiot-definition.

At least we're in agreement that you've been using the first definition. Clearly, the American Psychological Association had the second definition in mind when discussing heritability, because they used a lower case h.

 

As for that second definition that the American Psychological Association was using, the Answers.com article had this to say:

When interested in improving livestock via artificial selection, for example, knowing the narrow-sense heritability of the trait of interest will allow predicting how much the mean of the trait will increase in the next generation as a function of how much the mean of the selected parents differs from the mean of the population from which the selected parents were chosen.

In other words, the Wikipedia article's equation was using the term in exactly the right way.

[Bungee Jumper]

At least we're in agreement that you've been using the first definition. Clearly, the American Psychological Association had the second definition in mind when discussing heritability, because they used a lower case h.

 

As for that second definition that the American Psychological Association was using, the Answers.com article had this to say:

When interested in improving livestock via artificial selection, for example, knowing the narrow-sense heritability of the trait of interest will allow predicting how much the mean of the trait will increase in the next generation as a function of how much the mean of the selected parents differs from the mean of the population from which the selected parents were chosen.

In other words, the Wikipedia article's equation was using the term in exactly the right way.

827046[/snapback]

 

And you're basing that all on the h being lower case?

 

I don't suppose you can define "variance", can you?

[Orton's Arm]

And you're basing that all on the h being lower case?

827050[/snapback]

Yes. Had they intended the definition you have in mind, they would have used an upper case H.