Kelly the Dog Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 You think so? Then back up his statement. Name the specific posters who have "taken me to school" and give specific examples. Name the publications which have "taken me to school" and show me which specific content in those publications I was taken to school by. Be sure to give specific quotes from those publications, as well as from me. Finally, name the textbooks which have taken me to school, including page numbers and appropriate quotes, and show how these disproved specific posts. Good luck. 858070[/snapback] You're right. For once. The only one who has actually taken you to school is the short bus driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 At first, he did say I was wrong. He didn't realize what it was we were debating, and thought you guys were attacking the periphery of what I was saying. It took him a while to realize that people like you and Ramius were actually disagreeing with the core of my explanation of regression toward the mean. Once it finally dawned on him that people with your credentials were being so monumentally stupid, he came to my defense. 858614[/snapback] No, he consistently and to the end stated that error does NOT cause regression toward the mean, a normal distribution of data causes regression toward the mean. Which is in complete agreement with what I stated and explained, and in complete disagreement with your bull sh--. He also stated - explicitly - that you don't understand the concept of "error", which I've also been saying. He also said - explicitly - that your example (your incredibly stupid "Monte Carlo" exercise) proves the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 You did receive an answer, you just don't remember it. The government should provide intelligent women with financial incentives to have more kids; while also providing less intelligent women with financial incentives to obtain sterilizations. No, this is not an answer, because I asked for how would you specifically design such a program, not what your Mensa sex starved buddies think would be a good idea. (BTW, even in your cinematographical anthem, Louis lusted for the hot cheerleader chick and not for the HP belt-carrying brainiac) How would you determine intelligence, since you're pulling women out of the work force? How would you go down to your hated housing project with a wad of $100s and a scalpel? How much would you have to pay Melinda Gates to have 20 kids? Little details like that. It's stuff like this which leads me to dislike you. Wraith never defended my misremembered formula. He defended my (correct) discussion of regression toward the mean. In case his defense wasn't enough, I've provided a number of links to credible sources which support the way I've described regression toward the mean. In searching for those links, I didn't come across anyone who supported Bungee Jumper's strange view of the matter. If I'm ignoring published scientists, it's because they're ignoring the truth. 858609[/snapback] Funny, how the rest of the world recalls a different interpretation of that defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Funny, how the rest of the world recalls a different interpretation of that defense. 858654[/snapback] Funny? I thought it was utterly predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 No, he consistently and to the end stated that error does NOT cause regression toward the mean, a normal distribution of data causes regression toward the mean. Which is in complete agreement with what I stated and explained, and in complete disagreement with your bull sh--. He also stated - explicitly - that you don't understand the concept of "error", which I've also been saying. He also said - explicitly - that your example (your incredibly stupid "Monte Carlo" exercise) proves the exact opposite of what you were trying to prove with it. 858642[/snapback] He used the analogy of stretching a rubber band. Measurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place. He also felt I was saying the same thing in my examples as he was saying with his rubber band metaphor. It's true Wraith initially raised objections to my Monte Carlo simulation. He later wrote that I'd responded publicly and effectively to those objections. Once he understood what I was actually doing with the simulation, his opposition vanished. The more Wraith understood what we were arguing about, the more strongly he sided with me. You're focusing on his earlier posts, back before he'd realized how truly ignorant you were about regression toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 How would you determine intelligence, since you're pulling women out of the work force? How would you go down to your hated housing project with a wad of $100s and a scalpel? How much would you have to pay Melinda Gates to have 20 kids? I'd determine intelligence through standardized aptitude tests. Melinda Gates would be given tax incentives to have more children. Less wealthy intelligent women would be given subsidies to have children. Existing health clinics could be equipped to provide sterilizations for less intelligent women. The infrastructure is already in place; it just needs to be put to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 He used the analogy of stretching a rubber band. Measurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place. He also felt I was saying the same thing in my examples as he was saying with his rubber band metaphor. It's true Wraith initially raised objections to my Monte Carlo simulation. He later wrote that I'd responded publicly and effectively to those objections. Once he understood what I was actually doing with the simulation, his opposition vanished. The more Wraith understood what we were arguing about, the more strongly he sided with me. You're focusing on his earlier posts, back before he'd realized how truly ignorant you were about regression toward the mean. 858711[/snapback] No, an external force applied to a rubber band would cause it to stretch. Removal of that force would cause it to contract back to its normal dimensions. Measurement error does NOT cause a rubber band to stretch. Saying measurement error causes a rubber band to stretch is analagous to stating that measurement error causes a car to travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 No, an external force applied to a rubber band would cause it to stretch. Removal of that force would cause it to contract back to its normal dimensions. Measurement error does NOT cause a rubber band to stretch. Saying measurement error causes a rubber band to stretch is analagous to stating that measurement error causes a car to travel. 858776[/snapback] Measurement error causes a distribution to appear to be more spread out than it really is. For example, consider an I.Q. test which gives the correct result 60% of the time, gives a result 10 points too high 20% of the time, and a result 10 points too low 20% of the time. Apply this I.Q. test to a population with 10 people of an I.Q. of 190, 100 people with an I.Q. of 180, 1000 people of an I.Q. of 170, etc. Of the 10 people with an I.Q. of 190, two will get lucky on the I.Q. test and score a 200. Another six will get a 190 on the test, and they'll be joined by 20 people of I.Q. of 180 who got lucky on the test. The true distribution has 0 200s, and 10 190s. But on the I.Q. test, 2 people scored a 200, and 26 scored a 190. Measurement error caused the rubber band to stretch. If you ask those who scored a 200 to retake the test, their expected score the second time around is 190. Remeasuring causes the rubber band to snap back into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Measurement error causes a distribution to appear to be more spread out than it really is. For example, consider an I.Q. test which gives the correct result 60% of the time, gives a result 10 points too high 20% of the time, and a result 10 points too low 20% of the time. Apply this I.Q. test to a population with 10 people of an I.Q. of 190, 100 people with an I.Q. of 180, 1000 people of an I.Q. of 170, etc. Of the 10 people with an I.Q. of 190, two will get lucky on the I.Q. test and score a 200. Another six will get a 190 on the test, and they'll be joined by 20 people of I.Q. of 180 who got lucky on the test. The true distribution has 0 200s, and 10 190s. But on the I.Q. test, 2 people scored a 200, and 26 scored a 190. Measurement error caused the rubber band to stretch. If you ask those who scored a 200 to retake the test, their expected score the second time around is 190. Remeasuring causes the rubber band to snap back into place. 858783[/snapback] I was not referring to anything in your IQ posts in my post. I was referring specifically to your quote "(m)easurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place." Measurement error does not, can not, and will not cause a rubber band to stretch. The ONLY way to get a rubberband to stretch is to apply an external force. Barring an external force acting upon it, it will remain in its normal state where it holds the least potential energy. When you apply an external force to it, it will stretch (or compress) depending upon the force. You could apply that force while measuring the rubber band, but it would not be the "measurement error" causing the rubber band to stretch. It would be the force applied to the rubber band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Measurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place. 858711[/snapback] What the !@#$ is wrong with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Measurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place. What the !@#$ kind of idiotic nonsense are you trying to blather out now? I have to go into the lab to try this. I am going to measure a rubber band to get its length. I wont calibrate or zero the calipers, so they are in error. I will see if the measurement error causes the rubber band to stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I'd determine intelligence through standardized aptitude tests. Melinda Gates would be given tax incentives to have more children. Less wealthy intelligent women would be given subsidies to have children. Existing health clinics could be equipped to provide sterilizations for less intelligent women. The infrastructure is already in place; it just needs to be put to work. 858736[/snapback] Details, man. I asked for details. How much of a tax break do you need to give a woman who probably pays $300 million in annual taxes to bear children? How will you administer aptitude tests on women who won't need anything more than a 5th grade education, since you'll be taking them out of the work force? Who would work in these clinics that you speak of? Intelligent women or alphas? Or are these trite questions too inferior for your super genius buddies to tackle? Spare the details to the common lower caste? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Details, man. I asked for details. How much of a tax break do you need to give a woman who probably pays $300 million in annual taxes to bear children? How will you administer aptitude tests on women who won't need anything more than a 5th grade education, since you'll be taking them out of the work force? Who would work in these clinics that you speak of? Intelligent women or alphas? Or are these trite questions too inferior for your super genius buddies to tackle? Spare the details to the common lower caste? 858876[/snapback] Yeah, I'd like to see Holcombs_Arm's blueprint for this too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I was not referring to anything in your IQ posts in my post. I was referring specifically to your quote "(m)easurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place." Measurement error does not, can not, and will not cause a rubber band to stretch. The ONLY way to get a rubberband to stretch is to apply an external force. Barring an external force acting upon it, it will remain in its normal state where it holds the least potential energy. When you apply an external force to it, it will stretch (or compress) depending upon the force. You could apply that force while measuring the rubber band, but it would not be the "measurement error" causing the rubber band to stretch. It would be the force applied to the rubber band. 858824[/snapback] Wraith came up with the stretching of the rubber band as a metaphor with which to explain regression toward the mean. Neither he nor I feel measurement error can cause a rubber band to stretch in the literal sense of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Neither he nor I feel measurement error can cause a rubber band to stretch in the literal sense of the word. 858948[/snapback] Then who said this: Measurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place. Must have been the prime contestant for America's Stupidest Woman©™ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Details, man. I asked for details. How much of a tax break do you need to give a woman who probably pays $300 million in annual taxes to bear children? How will you administer aptitude tests on women who won't need anything more than a 5th grade education, since you'll be taking them out of the work force? Who would work in these clinics that you speak of? Intelligent women or alphas? Or are these trite questions too inferior for your super genius buddies to tackle? Spare the details to the common lower caste? 858876[/snapback] The tax break could consist of a lump sum, or a percentage of total taxes owed; with the woman choosing whichever was more beneficial. I realize it's a pretty big tax break right there, but the Bill Joys and Steve Wozniaks of the world create a lot of jobs and wealth. It's worth spending some money to have more people like that. The idea that woman would be receiving only 5th grade educations is yours, not mine. I wonder why you seem to think that the people working in health clinics under my plan would or should be different than those who work in health clinics right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Then who said this:Must have been the prime contestant for America's Stupidest Woman©™ 858955[/snapback] Before posting again, you need to go here to educate yourself a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Wraith came up with the stretching of the rubber band as a metaphor with which to explain regression toward the mean. Neither he nor I feel measurement error can cause a rubber band to stretch in the literal sense of the word. 858948[/snapback] No, it just causes it to relax to a ground state. Which is not regression to a mean. It's a REALLY sh------- metaphor. I can even describe for you a model of an elastic band where relaxation to the ground state is LITERALLY regression to the mean...and it's STILL a sh------- metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Before posting again, you need to go here to educate yourself a little. 858960[/snapback] "A figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance" In other words, it was NOT a metaphor, as relaxation of an excited system to a ground state bears absolutely no resemblance to regression toward the mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Before posting again, you need to go here to educate yourself a little. 858960[/snapback] No the proper application of your metaphor would be for the elasticity to cause the rubber band to snap back into shape, not measurement error. At the very least, get the right details on what he said. Is nap time over at the free clinic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts