Ramius Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 You are a stats master my friend. 826006[/snapback] No, its not good statistics. He didnt eliminate the data that doesnt fit his arguement, and he didnt demonstrate that error causes regression toward the mean. THOSE are qualities of good statistics, according to our resident retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 No, its not good statistics. He didnt eliminate the data that doesnt fit his arguement, and he didnt demonstrate that error causes regression toward the mean. THOSE are qualities of good statistics, according to our resident retard. 826826[/snapback] You forgot the most important part: accuse everyone else of trying to confuse the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 It's not hard, all he has to do is ask everyone what their kids want to be when they grow up. 826671[/snapback] It's statements like this which make me feel your contribution to the eugenics discussion has been worth little. The Weiss study determined the intelligence of the proband children through their performance on a standardized math test; not by asking them what they want to be when they grow up. Misguided comments like the one you just made added significantly to the length of the discussion, while at the same time decreasing its overall usefulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 It's statements like this which make me feel your contribution to the eugenics discussion has been worth little. The Weiss study determined the intelligence of the proband children through their performance on a standardized math test; not by asking them what they want to be when they grow up. Misguided comments like the one you just made added significantly to the length of the discussion, while at the same time decreasing its overall usefulness. 826894[/snapback] Trust me, there wasn't much overall usefulness in discussing it with you to begin with. Hell, you still haven't twigged to the fact that Weiss himself says in the paper itself that his "study" is flawed. You can't read, can't do math, and don't understand anything you're saying. I could have a more intelligent conversation with a rock than with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Trust me, there wasn't much overall usefulness in discussing it with you to begin with. Hell, you still haven't twigged to the fact that Weiss himself says in the paper itself that his "study" is flawed. You can't read, can't do math, and don't understand anything you're saying. I could have a more intelligent conversation with a rock than with you. 826915[/snapback] You think that Weiss identified intelligence in children based on future career aspirations, and I'm the one who can't read? Your other accusations are of course spurious, as perhaps they were meant to be. But without intending to give those accusations a dignity they don't deserve, I wonder why on earth you think I missed the part where Weiss described the flaws and limitations of his study. While no study is perfect, Weiss's was good enough for the relationship between parental and child I.Q. to shine through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 While no study is perfect, Weiss's was good enough for the relationship between parental and child I.Q. to shine through. 827311[/snapback] Weiss himself didn't think so! He said so in the damn study, fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Weiss himself didn't think so! He said so in the damn study, fool. 827398[/snapback] Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Wrong. 827555[/snapback] Nope. You'd know that if you read the paper. It's the part where he says it wasn't case-controlled for environment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Nope. You'd know that if you read the paper. It's the part where he says it wasn't case-controlled for environment... 827566[/snapback] You're wrong. But if we do too much more thread hijacking, we'll be elected honorary members of Al Qaeda. You'll be elected first, based on your comments about celebrating terrorist attacks and killing Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 Joe Six Pack's response to this was a slam dunk. But I'll add to what he wrote by saying that I know a woman who lived in Sweden. She had a low income while she was there. Paid high taxes. In fact, her taxes were so high that by the time she'd finished paying them, her rent, and her utilities, it was really tough to buy food. In a bad month, the last week or so would have no money at all for food, or for anything else. But if going hungry ever caused her medical problems, at least the hospital stay would be free. 824544[/snapback] And I suppose no one ever goes hungry in the US I'll take a wild guess and state that a smaller percentage of the population goes hungry in Sweden than it does in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 But that's what I'm using my money for. So you're trusting the government to do the right thing with your money? Good one! There are some truly destitute people out there that could use my help. That's why I give to charities. However there is a large percentage of the population that is just plain lazy. So you're saying some of MY hard earned money should go to them? I think not. 824473[/snapback] The trick is in setting the benefit level high enough to provide a safety net yet not so high that people don't have enough incentive to work. Heck, if I could receive my salary for doing nothing I wouldn't be bothered to go in (if work was any good you'd do it for free). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 And I suppose no one ever goes hungry in the US I'll take a wild guess and state that a smaller percentage of the population goes hungry in Sweden than it does in the US. 827968[/snapback] Maybe so, but for different reasons perhaps? Many people here use their government issued food stamps to purchase narcotics in lieu of feeding their families. It is a tough problem to fix, because there are not enough government workers to follow drug addicts around to make sure that they eat instead of smoking crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Maybe so, but for different reasons perhaps? Many people here use their government issued food stamps to purchase narcotics in lieu of feeding their families. It is a tough problem to fix, because there are not enough government workers to follow drug addicts around to make sure that they eat instead of smoking crack. 827970[/snapback] The problem is the sysytem is so damn lax now... You have a choice what you can buy at the store. The (gov't) should be able to say you get: A B or C That is it... Now couple that with (many states) stamps that look like credit cards... And you remove all stigma of having them. Return the stigma of food stamps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Stagnant economies, high unemployment, lack of innovation. 823658[/snapback] Socialism is another word for "redistribution of wealth" where the lazy, unmotivated and undeserving can get their "fair share" from the hard-working, responsible and innovative. *spit* On that topic, here's an entertaining site! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 Socialism is another word for "redistribution of wealth" where the lazy, unmotivated and undeserving can get their "fair share" from the hard-working, responsible and innovative. *spit* On that topic, here's an entertaining site! 828322[/snapback] Are you saying that everyone who is poor is so because they are "lazy, unmotivated and undeserving"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Are you saying that everyone who is poor is so because they are "lazy, unmotivated and undeserving"? 828347[/snapback] A few are also very unlucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Are you saying that everyone who is poor is so because they are "lazy, unmotivated and undeserving"? 828347[/snapback] No, chicot, that is not what I said and not what I implied! The issue is all about incentive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 And I suppose no one ever goes hungry in the US I'll take a wild guess and state that a smaller percentage of the population goes hungry in Sweden than it does in the US. 827968[/snapback] My problem with the Swedish system is that they taxed away this woman's food money. I don't want that here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts