Regression toward the mean

[Taro T]

Offhand...I think it's about .4. 

 

HA thinks it's .8, because the heritability of intelligence in adults is estimated to be about .8.  Of course, he doesn't know what heritability is...or correlation is...or what a parent-child relationship is, apparently...but other than that he's still completely wrong.

864330[/snapback]

Thanks.

[Orton's Arm]

None of which actually says anything about what heritability actually is.

On the contrary, the definition for lower-case h^2 said exactly what heritability is. You just conveniently "forgot" that little point.

[Ramius]

On the contrary, the definition for lower-case h^2 said exactly what heritability is. You just conveniently "forgot" that little point.

864506[/snapback]

 

yah, but you dont understand the concept, nor do you have any idea what heritability or h^2 means.

 

My 4 year old cousin can spit out that the equation for a line is y = mx+b, but he cant explain what it means. Kind of like you.

[Orton's Arm]

Thanks.

864429[/snapback]

No need to thank him for incorrect information. Identical twins raised apart show very strong correlations in their I.Q.s--far higher than the 0.4 Bungee Jumper is claiming. In contrast, unrelated children raised together show no correlation between their I.Q.s--at least not by adulthood. Genetics play a far greater role in explaining differences in people's intelligence than does the environment.

[Orton's Arm]

yah, but you dont understand the concept, nor do you have any idea what heritability or h^2 means.

 

My 4 year old cousin can spit out that the equation for a line is y = mx+b, but he cant explain what it means. Kind of like you.

864513[/snapback]

Could your four year old cousin act as childishly and stupidly as you've been acting?

[Ramius]

Could your four year old cousin act as childishly and stupidly as you've been acting?

864518[/snapback]

 

No, but he can whine and cry and agrue even when he's been proven wrong, just like you.

[Orton's Arm]

No, but he can whine and cry and agrue even when he's been proven wrong, just like you.

864561[/snapback]

Proven? Proven! Ha! You haven't proven a single thing. Hey, you haven't even attempted to prove anything at all. No links, no logical discussion, nothing. Nothing but insults that is, for an endless number of pages. Do you actually think people on these boards are stupid enough to believe you know the first thing about what you've been discussing? Don't you think that at some point, they'll notice you haven't exhibited the slightest degree of understanding about statistics, or even about "heritability?" That all you're doing is aping the insults Bungee Jumper's been throwing at me--and aping very poorly I might add.

 

Other than the fact that you're doing some grunt work for some hapless professor, you've given nobody even the slightest reason to take you seriously. Not when you backed up the idiotic statistical claims being made by syhuang. Not when you failed to understand the simple fact that people who obtain exceptionally high scores on tests are disproprortionately lucky (assuming there's measurement error). I haven't once seen you display an original thought, or an intelligent insight, or anything really. You make up for your clear lack of talent by throwing insults at anyone who disagrees with you. Just like a four year old.

[Ramius]

Other than the fact that you're doing some grunt work for some hapless professor, you've given nobody even the slightest reason to take you seriously. Not when you backed up the idiotic statistical claims being made by syhuang.

864623[/snapback]

 

1. I agree with everything bungee has said. if you want me to re-type what he's written, i'll do that so you have your "proof"

 

2. Syhuang has more intelligence on stats that you even know existed. Dont get your panties in a wad just because he called you out for omitting stats and setting arbitrary thresholds in your crusade to prove that JP is no good.

 

3. For some reason, these national institutions, called the NSF, and NIH, keep wanting to give my "hapless" professor more money to do his research. And my grunt work was recently awarded a fellowship by the way (the total amount of it is more than likely waaay more than you even make in a year). Mind you, this fellowship was MY thought our research plan, MY written proposal, and the award was given to ME.

 

Now, stop posting here and go back to work before your McManager catches you on the computer. Why dont you try explaining to him how the error in your deep fryer is causing the length fries to regress to the mean as you cook them.

[GG]

Do you actually think people on these boards are stupid enough to believe you know the first thing about what you've been discussing? Don't you think that at some point, they'll notice you haven't exhibited the slightest degree of understanding about statistics, or even about "heritability?" That all you're doing is aping the insults Bungee Jumper's been throwing at me--and aping very poorly I might add.

 

864623[/snapback]

 

Kinda like the people that have come rushing to your defense? (recall that the only support you got was to clarify a misremembered formula in a Monte Carlo simulation, not on any other "point" you've tried to raise)

 

Again, there's no shortage of people on this board who would take any opportunity to prove the jumping monkey wrong. Where have they been in these threads?

[Orton's Arm]

1. I agree with everything bungee has said. if you want me to re-type what he's written, i'll do that so you have your "proof"

 

2. Syhuang has more intelligence on stats that you even know existed.

In a discussion about whether Losman's performance was better this year than in his second stint from last year, syhuang called me out for comparing Losman's stats from this year to those from his second stint last year. That's even stupider than any stats-related claim I've seen you make, which is saying something.

3. For some reason, these national institutions, called the NSF, and NIH, keep wanting to give my "hapless" professor more money to do his research. And my grunt work was recently awarded a fellowship by the way (the total amount of it is more than likely waaay more than you even make in a year). Mind you, this fellowship was MY thought our research plan, MY written proposal, and the award was given to ME.

Insofar as that research plan required original thought, I'm sure such thought was supplied by your professor. You are incapable of analytically rigorous, original thought.

[Orton's Arm]

Kinda like the people that have come rushing to your defense? (recall that the only support you got was to clarify a misremembered formula in a Monte Carlo simulation, not on any other "point" you've tried to raise)

 

Again, there's no shortage of people on this board who would take any opportunity to prove the jumping monkey wrong.  Where have they been in these threads?

864681[/snapback]

You are confused. Nobody came to my defense for that misremembered formula. Wraith--who works with statistics for a living--came to my defense when Bungee Jumper and Ramius tried to deny that those who obtain extreme scores tend to obtain somewhat more average scores upon being retested.

 

Then there are those who, like yourself, have felt the need to participate in this discussion without fully understanding the material. These people have generally made the incorrect assumption that Bungee Jumper and Ramius must have at least a vaguely correct idea as to what they're talking about. Have you ever heard the expression that something was so stupid only a college professor would believe it? In this discussion, Bungee Jumper has exhibited a college professor-like ability to confuse himself and others about things which ought to be perfectly obvious. Someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test is more likely to be a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150. There are more 130s available for getting lucky on the test, than there are 150s available for getting unlucky.

 

Ramius's problem is that he has no idea what he's talking about, but he thinks he does.

[GG]

In a discussion about whether Losman's performance was better this year than in his second stint from last year, syhuang called me out for comparing Losman's stats from this year to those from his second stint last year. That's even stupider than any stats-related claim I've seen you make, which is saying something.

 

864689[/snapback]

 

Uhm, no. He called you out for massaging the data to "prove" your point. It didn't take a statistical wiz to see that he was right, and you were... Holcombs Arm.

 

PS, care to update your crack analytical work on Losman to see if the regression continues?

[GG]

You are confused. Nobody came to my defense for that misremembered formula. Wraith--who works with statistics for a living--came to my defense when Bungee Jumper and Ramius tried to deny that those who obtain extreme scores tend to obtain somewhat more average scores upon being retested.

 

Again, no matter how many times you say it, does not change the facts. Maybe your little head remembers things one way, but good thing the rest of the world doesn't work in your little head.

 

Then there are those who, like yourself, have felt the need to participate in this discussion without fully understanding the material. These people have generally made the incorrect assumption that Bungee Jumper and Ramius must have at least a vaguely correct idea as to what they're talking about. Have you ever heard the expression that something was so stupid only a college professor would believe it? In this discussion, Bungee Jumper has exhibited a college professor-like ability to confuse himself and others about things which ought to be perfectly obvious. Someone who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test is more likely to be a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150. There are more 130s available for getting lucky on the test, than there are 150s available for getting unlucky.

 

Ramius's problem is that he has no idea what he's talking about, but he thinks he does.

864705[/snapback]

 

And what about the other stats experts (Phds included) who called you an idiot? Just because they have the temerity to stay out of this mess doesn't invalidate their opinion of your knowledge.

 

But, I know. Their opinion hasn't been voiced lately, so it's automatically tossed out. Kind of like your proofs.

 

The difference between me and you is that neither you nor I, knows statistcs - but I don't proclaim to the world that I'm a stats expert.

[Ramius]

Ramius's problem is that he has no idea what he's talking about, but he thinks he does.

864705[/snapback]

 

ever notice how you are the only one saying this? the general consensus seems to be that you have no fuggin clue what you are saying, and you cant even comprehend nor define the words you are trying to use.

 

Its kind of like one of the few times you log off of everquest and you actually leave your parents basement and go out into a social setting. You think everyone else in the world is strange, and you;re normal, when in reality, you are the out of touch one.

[Orton's Arm]

Uhm, no.  He called you out for massaging the data to "prove" your point.  It didn't take a statistical wiz to see that he was right, and you were...  Holcombs Arm. 

 

PS, care to update your crack analytical work on Losman to see if the regression continues?

864709[/snapback]

You might want to go back and reread that thread. Syhuang threw a number of accusations against me. One of his complaints was that I was comparing stats from Losman's performance in his second stint from last season to his stats from this season to see if there'd been an improvement.

 

In addition to that, he complained because there were some scoring drives from Losman's second stint of last year which syhuang wanted me to throw out. Of those three drives, one included a touchdown pass; and I remember that the same or a different drive had a really long Losman run. Anyone who thinks those drives should have been thrown out obviously hasn't looked at them very closely.

[Orton's Arm]

Again, no matter how many times you say it, does not change the facts.  Maybe your little head remembers things one way, but good thing the rest of the world doesn't work in your little head.

And what about the other stats experts (Phds included) who called you an idiot?  Just because they have the temerity to stay out of this mess doesn't invalidate their opinion of your knowledge.

 

But, I know.  Their opinion hasn't been voiced lately, so it's automatically tossed out.  Kind of like your proofs.

To which "stats experts" are you referring? Because I haven't seen a whole lot of stats knowlege in this discussion from anyone except myself and Wraith (and on occassion Dave B). That doesn't make me a stats expert, but it does mean that I understand the fundamentals. Which is a lot more than can be said about a windbag like Ramius.

 

Edit: maybe you're thinking about Coli. He's a guy who knows about stats, but he's also a partisan liberal. When I started arguing the case for eugenics, he made the claim that I was interpreting statistical concepts incorrectly, due to a general lack of knowledge about stats. He had no earthly idea how I was interpreting or not interpreting those statistical concepts, so it was an easy cheap shot. Circumstances were vague enough he could make it without significantly decreasing his own credibility.

 

But then I started claiming something specific. I wrote that if you have an I.Q. test with measurement error, and if you have an underlying normally distributed population, those who obtain extreme scores on their first tests will, on average, score somewhat closer to the mean the second time around. Given our political differences, I think Coli would have jumped at the chance to exploit any given chink in my armor. But he couldn't contradict what I wrote about the appearance of regression toward the mean without destroying his own credibility. So he kept his mouth shut.

[syhuang]

You might want to go back and reread that thread. Syhuang threw a number of accusations against me. One of his complaints was that I was comparing stats from Losman's performance in his second stint from last season to his stats from this season to see if there'd been an improvement.

You're making things up again. I never complain which period compares to which period. What I complained is that you can't only use your method on JP and never test your method on other quarterbacks to see if your results are meaningful in all cases.

 

In addition to that, he complained because there were some scoring drives from Losman's second stint of last year which syhuang wanted me to throw out. Of those three drives, one included a touchdown pass; and I remember that the same or a different drive had a really long Losman run. Anyone who thinks those drives should have been thrown out obviously hasn't looked at them very closely.

864745[/snapback]

Again, you're wrong. It's not about these drives, some may think these drives should count, some may not. Get the point, it's about how you massage data by using "personal judgements" to keep the stats which should be ommitted by different threshold based on your own rules. You never bring in "personal judgements" on other drives.

 

 

You need to be reminded again:

 

Everyone can create any numbers he likes by

(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 favor his argument

(5) Get the manufactured numbers benefit his opinion

 

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

[Bungee Jumper]

To which "stats experts" are you referring? Because I haven't seen a whole lot of stats knowlege in this discussion from anyone except myself and Wraith (and on occassion Dave B). That doesn't make me a stats expert, but it does mean that I understand the fundamentals. Which is a lot more than can be said about a windbag like Ramius.

 

Edit: maybe you're thinking about Coli. He's a guy who knows about stats, but he's also a partisan liberal. When I started arguing the case for eugenics, he made the claim that I was interpreting statistical concepts incorrectly, due to a general lack of knowledge about stats. He had no earthly idea how I was interpreting or not interpreting those statistical concepts, so it was an easy cheap shot. Circumstances were vague enough he could make it without significantly decreasing his own credibility.

 

But then I started claiming something specific. I wrote that if you have an I.Q. test with measurement error, and if you have an underlying normally distributed population, those who obtain extreme scores on their first tests will, on average, score somewhat closer to the mean the second time around. Given our political differences, I think Coli would have jumped at the chance to exploit any given chink in my armor. But he couldn't contradict what I wrote about the appearance of regression toward the mean without destroying his own credibility. So he kept his mouth shut.

864747[/snapback]

 

Yeah. Coli's ignoring you because he's a liberal and you've shamed him. I'm sure that's it.

[EC-Bills]

Yeah.  Coli's ignoring you because he's a liberal and you've shamed him.  I'm sure that's it.

866103[/snapback]

 

It's quite possible. Coli's ignoring me because he has no idea who I am...

[Bungee Jumper]

It's quite possible.  Coli's ignoring me because he has no idea who I am...

866114[/snapback]

 

Coli's ignoring me because I don't eat at Taco Bell.