Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Stop thinking I don't understand your point. I DO understand your point. It's just utterly, completely, tragically wrong. 859616[/snapback] If you understood my point, you'd understand a) it's 100% correct, and b) you've been making a fool out of yourself for countless pages.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 If you understood my point, you'd understand a) it's 100% correct, 859626[/snapback] Are you just messing with me at this point, or are you really this dumb?
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Are you just messing with me at this point, or are you really this dumb? 859637[/snapback] I've been wondering the same thing about you for quite some time.
Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I've been wondering the same thing about you for quite some time. 859656[/snapback] I wonder how you even manage to get through the day, given your utter stupidity in so many areas. Frankly i am shocked that you can accomplish anything more than breathing and getting your heart to beat.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I wonder how you even manage to get through the day, given your utter stupidity in so many areas. Frankly i am shocked that you can accomplish anything more than breathing and getting your heart to beat. 859722[/snapback] Was my dice example really THAT unclear? Is there anyone else here, other than Holcomb's Arm, who doesn't understand by this point that regression toward the mean is caused by probability and not error?
Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Was my dice example really THAT unclear? Is there anyone else here, other than Holcomb's Arm, who doesn't understand by this point that regression toward the mean is caused by probability and not error? 859723[/snapback] No there isnt. Everyone else understands fine. Me, dave b, you, bluefire, and wraith himself, along with a host of others have said the same thing. As does mainstream math and science. But obviously, thousands of scientists and mathematicians are wrong, holcombs arm is right.
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 No there isnt. Everyone else understands fine. Me, dave b, you, bluefire, and wraith himself, along with a host of others have said the same thing. As does mainstream math and science. But obviously, thousands of scientists and mathematicians are wrong, holcombs arm is right. 859732[/snapback] The more you talk, the dumber you seem. And that's saying something! For you to pretend Wraith was supporting your own (and Bungee Jumper's) ignorant views is utterly laughable. For you to pretend thousands of scientists and mathematicians agree with you is ignorant bluster. You've shown not the slightest scrap of evidence that anyone outside these boards agrees with the garbage you've been spewing. I, on the other hand, have provided numerous links, to unrelated, credible sources, which support what I've been saying. If a given test involves an element of measurement error, those with extreme scores on the test will tend to regress toward the population mean upon being retested. The poorer the test is in measuring the underlying phenomenon, the greater the error range will be, and the more those with extreme scores will tend to regress toward the population mean upon being retested.
Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I, on the other hand, have provided numerous links, to unrelated, credible sources, which support what I've been saying. 859773[/snapback] Wikipedia and hyperstats arent the most credible sources around, moron. Why havent you linked to any peer reviewed journals? because they show that you are wrong, plain and simple.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Wikipedia and hyperstats arent the most credible sources around, moron. Why havent you linked to any peer reviewed journals? because they show that you are wrong, plain and simple. 859793[/snapback] But he's got Wraith!
GG Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 But he's got Wraith! 859808[/snapback] Is that the one leg that he can stand upon?
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Wikipedia and hyperstats arent the most credible sources around, moron. Why havent you linked to any peer reviewed journals? because they show that you are wrong, plain and simple. 859793[/snapback] If I come across a peer-reviewed journal that spells out regression toward the mean in terms you can understand, I'll let you know. Most peer-reviewed journals assume their readers already know what regression toward the mean is. Those who don't know what it is--and yes, this means you--are supposed to go to websites that teach people about stats. I've provided nice links to such places. Too bad you either ignored them or didn't understand them.
Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 If I come across a peer-reviewed journal that spells out regression toward the mean in terms you can understand, I'll let you know. Most peer-reviewed journals assume their readers already know what regression toward the mean is. Those who don't know what it is--and yes, this means you--are supposed to go to websites that teach people about stats. I've provided nice links to such places. Too bad you either ignored them or didn't understand them. 859829[/snapback] Interpretation: you cant find any articles that support your point because you are wrong and i am right. furthermore, if you did find them, you wouldnt understand them. Since your only link is hyperstats, it is safe to assume that you an only comprehend 2nd grade level explanations of a mathematical field far far above your intellectual capabilities.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 If I come across a peer-reviewed journal that spells out regression toward the mean in terms you can understand, I'll let you know. Most peer-reviewed journals assume their readers already know what regression toward the mean is. Those who don't know what it is--and yes, this means you--are supposed to go to websites that teach people about stats. I've provided nice links to such places. Too bad you either ignored them or didn't understand them. 859829[/snapback] Or, instead of the internet, they could...I don't know...go to school.
Wraith Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 But he's got Wraith! 859808[/snapback] Hey now, don't just throw my name around like that. I defended some very specific areas of HA's argument in a previous thread. They were worthy of being defended. That does not mean I support everything he says on the matter of statistics. I have also told him at various times that some of his statements were wrong. You yourself referenced those occasions earlier in this thread. That does not mean I disagree with every he says. So don't try to imply I am backing up every one of his claims and don't try to imply that this statement means I think he's always wrong or stupid.
Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I think he's always wrong or stupid. 859850[/snapback] Thats all we needed to know.
Chilly Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Thats all we needed to know. 859854[/snapback] I am thankful for quotes that work out of context. Without them the amount of humor in the world would be significantly less.
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I am thankful for quotes that work out of context. Without them the amount of humor in the world would be significantly less. 859861[/snapback] In addition to that, Ramius and Bungee Jumper wouldn't have anything to say!
Wraith Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Thats all we needed to know. 859854[/snapback] That's not necessary. The first mistake HA made was calling the behavior seen in his scenario "regression towards the mean." That phrase has a very specific meaning to statisticians, and the behavior exhibited by his scenario does not fit that meaning. You'll notice, that is why I always refer to it as "the specific scenario" and not "regression towards the mean." However, in HA's defense, he has never claimed to be a trained or professional statistician, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume he would not know that the phrase "regression towards the mean" has such a specific meaning/application in traditional statistics. Furthermore, because his scenario demonstrates how the presence of normally distributed measurement error contributes to the movement of sample means towards population means after retest, I don't think it is much of a crime for an amateur statistician with a basic stats education to call it "regression towards the mean." The other mistakes HA has made involve being stubborn and arrogant, but that is definitely not in short supply amongst his detractors, either. Hell, I am as stubborn and arrogant as they come.
GG Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 I don't think it is much of a crime for an amateur statistician with a basic stats education to call it "regression towards the mean." 859871[/snapback] But is it a bulletin board crime, if people with more than a basic stats education tell him that it's not "regression to the mean," yet he continues to insist that it is?
Bungee Jumper Posted December 7, 2006 Posted December 7, 2006 Hey now, don't just throw my name around like that. I defended some very specific areas of HA's argument in a previous thread. They were worthy of being defended. That does not mean I support everything he says on the matter of statistics. I have also told him at various times that some of his statements were wrong. You yourself referenced those occasions earlier in this thread. That does not mean I disagree with every he says. So don't try to imply I am backing up every one of his claims and don't try to imply that this statement means I think he's always wrong or stupid. 859850[/snapback] My apologies. It was a dig at him and his treatment of you as some sort of magical statistical talisman. Not you.
Recommended Posts