Ramius Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Don't forget the part where luck and error are both "heritable" (sic)... 866762[/snapback] No they arent. Remember his claim a few posts back? Parents are lucky and unlucky which is why they dont score their actual IQ. But somehow, in moron's eugenics plan, the kids will score exactly their IQ, and not be subject to luck or error.
Taro T Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Don't forget the part where luck and error are both "heritable" (sic)... 866762[/snapback] Well, they're 80% "heritable", so there is a 20% component to luck that's due to environment, or stated another way luck can be due to being in the right place at the right time (which is what most people consider luck in the 1st place). So 20% of luck is due to being lucky.
Orton's Arm Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 Someone PM'd me about this thread, and said I was mentioned in it. I did a quick scan and for some reason HA is calling me out, even though I've not been a part of, nor followed this stupid discussion for weeks. Hey a-hole, I made it pretty freaking clear a long while ago that my position was I would make a single post on the subject of eugenics, much like I've done with respect to Creationist threads, and be done with it. I have found in the past that "debating" with people like you leads to page upon page of wasted effort that doesn't change the other person's mind anyway. What a shocker that this discussion is well over 50 pages. You are using a less-than rudimentary knowledge of statistics to make an argument for eugenics (or at least that is what you were doing a month-or-so ago when this whole thing began). I have no idea what the hell it is you are arguing for now, but based on your track record I'd say there's a pretty good chance that you are dead wrong. How regression to the mean even factors into a eugenics discussion is a question I have no desire to hear your answer for. You may continue to go on thinking my silence proves you right, but in the reality everyone else resides in it's called "ignoring you." Any person arguing a pro-eugenics position is not worth my time. 866702[/snapback] Misinformed and partisan insults coming from pinkos such as yourself don't bother me a whole lot. But what your post did not contain is a refutation of a very specific statistical claim I've been making for the last 30 - 50 pages. Nobody's interested in whether you like me, or what opinions you've formed of eugenics. They want to know where you stand on one specific issue. If you're going to post anything at all in this thread, you need to address that issue. That issue is this: suppose you have a population that's normally distributed with respect to intelligence. Suppose you were to give every member of the population a mildly imperfect I.Q. test. It's mildly imperfect in the sense that a given person's score is expected to vary a little from one test taking to the next. Suppose you were to take a group of people who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test; and were to ask them to retake the test. Would the group as a whole be expected to average 140 on the retake, or would it be expected to get a lower average? That's just about the only thing we've been arguing about these last 50 pages. If you can come down off your high horse to address this issue, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it.
Orton's Arm Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 Don't forget the part where luck and error are both "heritable" (sic)... 866762[/snapback] I'd expect this level of pure stupidity from Ramis, but not from you. I'm not saying I expected you to reach lofty intellectual heights--the last 50 pages have proven otherwise. But this is a new low for you.
Ramius Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Well, they're 80% "heritable", so there is a 20% component to luck that's due to environment, or stated another way luck can be due to being in the right place at the right time (which is what most people consider luck in the 1st place). So 20% of luck is due to being lucky. 866769[/snapback] Actually, the technical definition of luck, according to the limp arm, is going to vegas, and winning at the craps tables when someone rolls double 3.5's.
Orton's Arm Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 Actually, the technical definition of luck, according to the limp arm, is going to vegas, and winning at the craps tables when someone rolls double 3.5's. 866777[/snapback] I expect stupidity from Ramius, and he helpfully delivers. Thanks, man.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 No they arent. Remember his claim a few posts back? Parents are lucky and unlucky which is why they dont score their actual IQ. But somehow, in moron's eugenics plan, the kids will score exactly their IQ, and not be subject to luck or error. 866766[/snapback] Oh yeah, luck isn't heritable. Which is why parents who are lucky enough to have lots of error have kids who are unlucky enough to be right. And the solution to this is to pay lucky wrong people to have unlucky right kids...and the way we judge people to be unlucky and wrong is to determine whether or not they're East German scientists...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Misinformed and partisan insults coming from pinkos such as yourself don't bother me a whole lot. But what your post did not contain is a refutation of a very specific statistical claim I've been making for the last 30 - 50 pages. Nobody's interested in whether you like me, or what opinions you've formed of eugenics. They want to know where you stand on one specific issue. If you're going to post anything at all in this thread, you need to address that issue. That issue is this: suppose you have a population that's normally distributed with respect to intelligence. Suppose you were to give every member of the population a mildly imperfect I.Q. test. It's mildly imperfect in the sense that a given person's score is expected to vary a little from one test taking to the next. Suppose you were to take a group of people who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test; and were to ask them to retake the test. Would the group as a whole be expected to average 140 on the retake, or would it be expected to get a lower average? That's just about the only thing we've been arguing about these last 50 pages. If you can come down off your high horse to address this issue, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it. 866771[/snapback] Don't answer that, Coli! Keep your pinko commie statistics out of this!
Ramius Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Oh yeah, luck isn't heritable. Which is why parents who are lucky enough to have lots of error have kids who are unlucky enough to be right. And the solution to this is to pay lucky wrong people to have unlucky right kids...and the way we judge people to be unlucky and wrong is to determine whether or not they're East German scientists... 866787[/snapback] I think we may have stumbled across the mathematical proof that sex causes regression to the mean. And since holcombs arm is so smart, its reassuring to know he wont be regressing anytime soon.
Johnny Coli Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 That issue is this: suppose you have a population that's normally distributed with respect to intelligence. Suppose you were to give every member of the population a mildly imperfect I.Q. test. It's mildly imperfect in the sense that a given person's score is expected to vary a little from one test taking to the next. Suppose you were to take a group of people who scored a 140 on an I.Q. test; and were to ask them to retake the test. Would the group as a whole be expected to average 140 on the retake, or would it be expected to get a lower average? That's just about the only thing we've been arguing about these last 50 pages. If you can come down off your high horse to address this issue, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate it. 866771[/snapback] You're asking me to make a judgement on the outcome of a test that not only have you knowingly made to be imperfect , you are also arbitrarily sectioning off an entire group based on the score they got on the imperfect test and making them take it again. So, not only do you want me to take you off ignore, you want me to make an informed scientific opinion on a test that has no scientific method behind it whatsoever. Here's a question for you....what is the probability that I am going to call you an idiot, put you back on ignore and go back to work?
Bungee Jumper Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 I think we may have stumbled across the mathematical proof that sex causes regression to the mean. And since holcombs arm is so smart, its reassuring to know he wont be regressing anytime soon. 866800[/snapback] I doubt he's smart. It's far more likely that he's in error. Gotta love the "Only I understand how extreme IQs are more likely wrong than right, because I have an extreme IQ!" logic...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 You're asking me to make a judgement on the outcome of a test that not only have you knowingly made to be imperfect , you are also arbitrarily sectioning off an entire group based on the score they got on the imperfect test and making them take it again. So, not only do you want me to take you off ignore, you want me to make an informed scientific opinion on a test that has no scientific method behind it whatsoever. Here's a question for you....what is the probability that I am going to call you an idiot, put you back on ignore and go back to work? 866803[/snapback] About the same as the probability he says you disagree with him because you're a liberal...
Orton's Arm Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 Oh yeah, luck isn't heritable. Which is why parents who are lucky enough to have lots of error have kids who are unlucky enough to be right. And the solution to this is to pay lucky wrong people to have unlucky right kids...and the way we judge people to be unlucky and wrong is to determine whether or not they're East German scientists... 866787[/snapback] Don't quit your day job.
Ramius Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 You're asking me to make a judgement on the outcome of a test that not only have you knowingly made to be imperfect , you are also arbitrarily sectioning off an entire group based on the score they got on the imperfect test and making them take it again. So, not only do you want me to take you off ignore, you want me to make an informed scientific opinion on a test that has no scientific method behind it whatsoever. Here's a question for you....what is the probability that I am going to call you an idiot, put you back on ignore and go back to work? 866803[/snapback] We've been saying the same thing for 60 pages now. But apparently, since HA is in mensa, posts on mensa message boards, and is in the triple 9 club, he is above listening to valid scientific logic from us cretins.
Orton's Arm Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 You're asking me to make a judgement on the outcome of a test that not only have you knowingly made to be imperfect , you are also arbitrarily sectioning off an entire group based on the score they got on the imperfect test and making them take it again. So, not only do you want me to take you off ignore, you want me to make an informed scientific opinion on a test that has no scientific method behind it whatsoever. Here's a question for you....what is the probability that I am going to call you an idiot, put you back on ignore and go back to work? 866803[/snapback] There's a difference between a test that's "imperfect" and a test that "has no scientific method behind it whatsoever." In the imperfect test I've described, someone's "true I.Q." is defined as what that person's average score would be if they took the I.Q. test 1000 times. A person's actual test scores will be normally distributed around his or her "true I.Q." with some non-zero standard deviation. Again, if a group of people who scored a 140 on an imperfect I.Q. test find themselves being retested, is the group expected to average a 140 on the retest, or is it expected to average a lower score?
Orton's Arm Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 We've been saying the same thing for 60 pages now. But apparently, since HA is in mensa, posts on mensa message boards, and is in the triple 9 club, he is above listening to valid scientific logic from us cretins. 866820[/snapback] You use "valid logic"?
Bungee Jumper Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 There's a difference between a test that's "imperfect" and a test that "has no scientific method behind it whatsoever." In the imperfect test I've described, someone's "true I.Q." is defined as what that person's average score would be if they took the I.Q. test 1000 times. A person's actual test scores will be normally distributed around his or her "true I.Q." with some non-zero standard deviation. Again, if a group of people who scored a 140 on an imperfect I.Q. test find themselves being retested, is the group expected to average a 140 on the retest, or is it expected to average a lower score? 866822[/snapback] You didn't understand a single word he posted, did you?
Johnny Coli Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 Again, if a group of people who scored a 140 on an imperfect I.Q. test find themselves being retested, is the group expected to average a 140 on the retest, or is it expected to average a lower score? 866822[/snapback] The problem is there's no usefull information that can be used in this example to form a reasoned response to. -What is the mean of the population? -How was that mean determined? -If it was determined using the same imperfect test how do you know you have a true mean? -What is the data range? -Are there any scores above 140? -Why are you choosing 140? Another huge problem is that you're testing according to what you want to see. You are setting it up to get what you want. If any of the 140 retest below 140, will you test them again, or will you be happy that they scored lower because that's what you want to see? What if they score higher upon a third test? Hell, what if they all test higher because they're getting better at taking the test? That's why I said you're not even approaching the problem from a scientific standpoint. You're already totally biased. Why the hell am I even involved in this thread?
erynthered Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 The problem is there's no usefull information that can be used in this example to form a reasoned response to. -What is the mean of the population? -How was that mean determined? -If it was determined using the same imperfect test how do you know you have a true mean? -What is the data range? -Are there any scores above 140? -Why are you choosing 140? Another huge problem is that you're testing according to what you want to see. You are setting it up to get what you want. If any of the 140 retest below 140, will you test them again, or will you be happy that they scored lower because that's what you want to see? What if they score higher upon a third test? Hell, what if they all test higher because they're getting better at taking the test? That's why I said you're not even approaching the problem from a scientific standpoint. You're already totally biased. Why the hell am I even involved in this thread? 866877[/snapback] You got sucked in JC, you pinko commie. Chalk another one up for HA.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 14, 2006 Posted December 14, 2006 The problem is there's no usefull information that can be used in this example to form a reasoned response to. -What is the mean of the population? -How was that mean determined? -If it was determined using the same imperfect test how do you know you have a true mean? -What is the data range? -Are there any scores above 140? -Why are you choosing 140? Another huge problem is that you're testing according to what you want to see. You are setting it up to get what you want. If any of the 140 retest below 140, will you test them again, or will you be happy that they scored lower because that's what you want to see? What if they score higher upon a third test? Hell, what if they all test higher because they're getting better at taking the test? That's why I said you're not even approaching the problem from a scientific standpoint. You're already totally biased. Why the hell am I even involved in this thread? 866877[/snapback] Oh, that's just partisan liberal thinking. It's not, like, right or anything.
Recommended Posts