How We Went To War

[RkFast]

You're right. I shouldn't assume you're thinking. I'm sorry.

 

OKay, Im just going to say it...Ive gone from loathing you to being one of your biggest fans.

 

Wow...thats ghey.

[Simon]

Verbosity is not a remedy for ignorance.

If I had time I'd create a lengthy treatise on why that's not true......

[Ramius]

Verbosity is not a remedy for ignorance.

 

Did you PM this to holcombs arm?

[molson_golden2002]

Gentility is not a remedy for stupidity.

You know what is really stupid? Just showing up like an idiotic troll and tossing out childish insults. Just ask yourself one question: Do YOU have anything to contribute to the discussion? Being a troll is being stupid.

[Orton's Arm]

you are a proponent of your retarded version of incorrect die and regression to the mean, thereby you reject darwinism.

Read the whole post again, numskull. Actually read it, if you think you're capable of that.

 

Bungee Jumper pointed out (correctly) that when two smart people have kids, their children will generally have above-normal levels of intelligence. They won't, on average, be quite as smart as their parents are. He concluded that neither selectively breeding for stupidity (which is what we're currently doing) or a eugenics program, would make any long-term difference to the gene pool. Either way, he felt, things would simply drift back toward the population's average I.Q. over the long run.

 

It finally dawned on me that Bungee Jumper's line of reasoning would undermine the entire basis for Darwinism. Nearly every trait has a narrow-sense heritability of less than 1. This means that if two very tall parents have children, their kids will generally be tall, but not quite as tall as their parents. And that's not just true for height, but for almost any trait you care to name. And guess what? Darwinism still produces results anyway.

 

If you give a species' smartest members a survival or reproductive advantage, that species will gradually get smarter. That simple fact was nicely illustrated by the fact that humans evolved from apes; and apes from less intelligent ancestors. To argue that this fact no longer holds true is anti-scientific. Unfortunately, the same forces which once worked to increase humans' intelligence are now working to decrease the intelligence of the species.

[Ramius]

Read the whole post again, numskull. Actually read it, if you think you're capable of that.

 

Bungee Jumper pointed out (correctly) that when two smart people have kids, their children will generally have above-normal levels of intelligence. They won't, on average, be quite as smart as their parents are. He concluded that neither selectively breeding for stupidity (which is what we're currently doing) or a eugenics program, would make any long-term difference to the gene pool. Either way, he felt, things would simply drift back toward the population's average I.Q. over the long run.

 

It finally dawned on me that Bungee Jumper's line of reasoning would undermine the entire basis for Darwinism. Nearly every trait has a narrow-sense heritability of less than 1. This means that if two very tall parents have children, their kids will generally be tall, but not quite as tall as their parents. And that's not just true for height, but for almost any trait you care to name. And guess what? Darwinism still produces results anyway.

 

If you give a species' smartest members a survival or reproductive advantage, that species will gradually get smarter. That simple fact was nicely illustrated by the fact that humans evolved from apes; and apes from less intelligent ancestors. To argue that this fact no longer holds true is anti-scientific. Unfortunately, the same forces which once worked to increase humans' intelligence are now working to decrease the intelligence of the species.

 

You roll a 3.5 yet?

[DC Tom]

You know what is really stupid? Just showing up like an idiotic troll and tossing out childish insults.

 

:lol: :lol:

 

That is richer in irony than any post I've ever seen...

[Orton's Arm]

You roll a 3.5 yet?

I'll add the concept of expected value to the long list of things you have no clue about.

In probability theory the expected value (or mathematical expectation, or mean) of a random variable is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the experiment multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Note that the value itself may not be expected in the general sense - the "expected value" itself may be unlikely or even impossible (with discrete random variables).

 

For example, the expected value from the roll of an ordinary six-sided die is 3.5

[DC Tom]

Read the whole post again, numskull. Actually read it, if you think you're capable of that.

 

Bungee Jumper pointed out (correctly) that when two smart people have kids, their children will generally have above-normal levels of intelligence. They won't, on average, be quite as smart as their parents are. He concluded that neither selectively breeding for stupidity (which is what we're currently doing) or a eugenics program, would make any long-term difference to the gene pool. Either way, he felt, things would simply drift back toward the population's average I.Q. over the long run.

 

It finally dawned on me that Bungee Jumper's line of reasoning would undermine the entire basis for Darwinism. Nearly every trait has a narrow-sense heritability of less than 1. This means that if two very tall parents have children, their kids will generally be tall, but not quite as tall as their parents. And that's not just true for height, but for almost any trait you care to name. And guess what? Darwinism still produces results anyway.

 

If you give a species' smartest members a survival or reproductive advantage, that species will gradually get smarter. That simple fact was nicely illustrated by the fact that humans evolved from apes; and apes from less intelligent ancestors. To argue that this fact no longer holds true is anti-scientific. Unfortunately, the same forces which once worked to increase humans' intelligence are now working to decrease the intelligence of the species.

 

Holy Christ. Now I'm right...and you still don't understand anything about the topics in question. I can't even begin to explain how many gross errors you have in this post.

 

Do us all a favor, yourself included. Just stop already.

[DC Tom]

I'll add the concept of expected value to the long list of things you have no clue about.

 

That definition is incorrect. The AVERAGE value of the sides of a die is 3.5. The expected value is not, because it is impossible to get that value by rolling a die.

 

Frequently - but not always - in physical systems the expected value and average are the same value. But that does not mean that "average" and "expected value" are synonymous - they're not. They're two completely different concepts.

[Orton's Arm]

Holy Christ. Now I'm right...and you still don't understand anything about the topics in question. I can't even begin to explain how many gross errors you have in this post.

 

Do us all a favor, yourself included. Just stop already.

The previous "attempts" you've made to expose my so-called "gross errors" have only made you look ignorant and stupid. I see that this time around, you've chosen the prudent path of sticking to generalized insults. If you say, "You're an idiot for making this post," it's much harder to expose your own ignorance and error than if you say, "Your post is incorrect based on facts 1, 2, and 3." And hey, maybe someone will make the mistake of believing there must be some truth to the vague accusations you're once again throwing my way.

[Orton's Arm]

That definition is incorrect. The AVERAGE value of the sides of a die is 3.5. The expected value is not, because it is impossible to get that value by rolling a die.

 

Frequently - but not always - in physical systems the expected value and average are the same value. But that does not mean that "average" and "expected value" are synonymous - they're not. They're two completely different concepts.

I realize Wikipedia isn't always correct, but its level of credibility is infinitely higher than is your own. If you want me to believe its definition of expected value is incorrect, you're going to have to find a credible source to back you up. Your own, unsupported word carries zero credibility.

[Alaska Darin]

:lol: :lol:

 

That is richer in irony than any post I've ever seen...

You aren't alone in that.

[Ramius]

I'll add the concept of expected value to the long list of things you have no clue about.

 

So whats the expected value of a die with sides cat, dog, squirrel, rabbit, horse, and goat?

[Ramius]

That definition is incorrect. The AVERAGE value of the sides of a die is 3.5. The expected value is not, because it is impossible to get that value by rolling a die.

 

Frequently - but not always - in physical systems the expected value and average are the same value. But that does not mean that "average" and "expected value" are synonymous - they're not. They're two completely different concepts.

 

Remember, this IS coming from someone who consistently quotes wikipedia, while at the same time discrediting thousands of published scientists and journals, because they prove him wrong.

[EC-Bills]

Remember, this IS coming from someone who consistently quotes wikipedia, while at the same time discrediting thousands of published scientists and journals, because they prove him wrong.

 

 

My bad , I thought I could stop changing stuff in wikipedia, but it's just too much fun since I know HA will buy into it hook, line, and sinker.

[Chilly]

Remember, this IS coming from someone who consistently quotes wikipedia, while at the same time discrediting thousands of published scientists and journals, because they prove him wrong.

 

I actually did find a link that supports him when I was looking for more info: http://www.ds.unifi.it/VL/VL_EN/expect/expect1.html

 

This site says that the expected value is the mean of the distribution (whether possible or not possible) and thus 3.5.

 

I don't have a friggin' clue if thats the accepted statistical definition though.

[DC Tom]

So whats the expected value of a die with sides cat, dog, squirrel, rabbit, horse, and goat?

 

That's easy. Mammal.

[DC Tom]

The previous "attempts" you've made to expose my so-called "gross errors" have only made you look ignorant and stupid. I see that this time around, you've chosen the prudent path of sticking to generalized insults. If you say, "You're an idiot for making this post," it's much harder to expose your own ignorance and error than if you say, "Your post is incorrect based on facts 1, 2, and 3." And hey, maybe someone will make the mistake of believing there must be some truth to the vague accusations you're once again throwing my way.

 

My previous "attempts" were clear to anyone with even half a brain. If you could do the math (which is NOT the same as quoting wikipedia or Stanford), you could disprove yourself.

[DC Tom]

I realize Wikipedia isn't always correct, but its level of credibility is infinitely higher than is your own. If you want me to believe its definition of expected value is incorrect, you're going to have to find a credible source to back you up. Your own, unsupported word carries zero credibility.

 

Anyone who's taken a sophmore-level college physics class knows that definition is wrong. Basic stat mech or quantum physics: sometimes the ensemble average is the expectation value, sometimes it isn't.

 

Of course, statistics 101 will show the same thing. It's very easy to establish a simple data set (a list of numbers) where the expectation value is less than the average. It's basically the difference between the mean and median values of the data set. Of course, you'll never understand that, as it involves math.