Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Never mind that an equal proportion of people score less than their true score, and thus the effect of error zeros out over the entire population, which completely nullifies your argument anyway...YOU'RE NOT RETESTING THE PARENTS WHEN YOU TEST THE CHILD. You truly are a glutton for punishment. An equal proportion of people score less than their true score across the entire population. But not within the subset you selected. Inasmuch as the group you selected had high test scores, and inasmuch as high test scores are based on luck, the group you selected got disproportionately lucky. This means their test scores are somewhat higher than their true I.Q.s. If you select a group of parents with measured I.Q.s of 140, you're selecting a group of people with true, underlying I.Q.s that are actually lower--say 135. If you were to retest the parent group, the group's average score would fall to 135. This is because of the test/retest phenomenon. But you're not retesting them, are you? Instead you're testing their children. You're testing the children of parents, when the parents have measured I.Q.s of 140, and true I.Q.s of 135. Hey, maybe the children averaged 135 on the I.Q. test. That doesn't mean they're regressing toward the mean, even though a lot of young punks do that nowadays. It just means that, unlike the parents, the children's I.Q.s are (on average) being measured correctly. So if children score closer to the population mean than their parents, it isn't necessarily because children's true values are closer to the mean. At least some of that movement is due to the test/retest phenomenon. On the other hand, tall parents tend to have children that are somewhat less tall. Given the fact that narrow-sense heritability is less than one even for traits that are easy to measure, it's probable that heritability is also less than one for more difficult to measure characteristics such as intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 So lets see. Test the parents, and their scores will be incorrect due to error. But test their children, and the test is automatically 100% error free. damn HA has one warped, albeit small, mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 So lets see. Test the parents, and their scores will be incorrect due to error. But test their children, and the test is automatically 100% error free. damn HA has one warped, albeit small, mind. Are you really this clueless after 60+ pages of discussion? You amaze me. You test all parents. Then you select those parents which got a 140 on the I.Q. test. This subset of the population got disproportionately lucky on the I.Q. test, because they were selected on a score that's (somewhat) based on luck. Hopefully even you can understand this. Then you test their children. This time around, positive errors will cancel out negative errors, giving you an accurate idea as to what the average I.Q. of the children is. This doesn't mean the test is "automatically 100% error free" as you so stupidly assert. It does mean lucky children and unlucky children will be roughly equal in number, thereby giving you an accurate idea of the average I.Q. for the children. The fact I have to keep explaining stuff like this to you is why I don't respect your intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Are you really this clueless after 60+ pages of discussion? You amaze me. You test all parents. Then you select those parents which got a 140 on the I.Q. test. This subset of the population got disproportionately lucky on the I.Q. test, because they were selected on a score that's (somewhat) based on luck. Hopefully even you can understand this. Then you test their children. This time around, positive errors will cancel out negative errors, giving you an accurate idea as to what the average I.Q. of the children is. This doesn't mean the test is "automatically 100% error free" as you so stupidly assert. It does mean lucky children and unlucky children will be roughly equal in number, thereby giving you an accurate idea of the average I.Q. for the children. The fact I have to keep explaining stuff like this to you is why I don't respect your intelligence. The very day "luck" becomes a mathematical concept is the day that this argument MIGHT start making any sense. It's also the very day you'll cease to understand what "luck" means, of course... And just so you know, the early polling is running at about 70% wanting me to show you some mercy and stop making an utter fool out of you (my favorite comment was the one comparing you to a "border collie that won't stop fetching a ball"), and about 30% urging me to keep grinding you into dust. There was also one suggestion that you be banned for being a "perverse moron". There is, of course, a margin of error in the poll, so it should regress to 3.5 by tomorrow... And congratulations. You just described regression of the error towards the mean of the error, as distinct from the variance of the population distribution. You just proved, yourself, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, and you...well, don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The very day "luck" becomes a mathematical concept is the day that this argument MIGHT start making any sense. It's also the very day you'll cease to understand what "luck" means, of course...And just so you know, the early polling is running at about 70% wanting me to show you some mercy and stop making an utter fool out of you (my favorite comment was the one comparing you to a "border collie that won't stop fetching a ball"), and about 30% urging me to keep grinding you into dust. There was also one suggestion that you be banned for being a "perverse moron". There is, of course, a margin of error in the poll, so it should regress to 3.5 by tomorrow... And congratulations. You just described regression of the error towards the mean of the error, as distinct from the variance of the population distribution. You just proved, yourself, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, and you...well, don't. Border Collie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 The very day "luck" becomes a mathematical concept is the day that this argument MIGHT start making any sense. It's also the very day you'll cease to understand what "luck" means, of course...And just so you know, the early polling is running at about 70% wanting me to show you some mercy and stop making an utter fool out of you (my favorite comment was the one comparing you to a "border collie that won't stop fetching a ball"), and about 30% urging me to keep grinding you into dust. There was also one suggestion that you be banned for being a "perverse moron". There is, of course, a margin of error in the poll, so it should regress to 3.5 by tomorrow... And congratulations. You just described regression of the error towards the mean of the error, as distinct from the variance of the population distribution. You just proved, yourself, that I do in fact know what I'm talking about, and you...well, don't. The fact that you think you're "grinding [me] into dust" is truly pathetic. I have no idea what "polling" you're talking about, unless you're referring to your love letters from Ramius. As for your comments about the word "luck," you should send them to the Stanford professor who wrote that article about regression toward the mean. You know, the article which repeatedly used the word "lucky" and "unlucky." If you got a response at all--which I doubt you would--you'd hear something along the following lines, "The word 'lucky' is shorthand to describe people whose measured scores exceed their true scores; whereas the word 'unlucky' is a useful shorthand description for people whose measured scores are lower than their true scores." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 ... I have no idea ... Truer words have never been spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The fact that you think you're "grinding [me] into dust" is truly pathetic. I have no idea what "polling" you're talking about, unless you're referring to your love letters from Ramius. As for your comments about the word "luck," you should send them to the Stanford professor who wrote that article about regression toward the mean. You know, the article which repeatedly used the word "lucky" and "unlucky." If you got a response at all--which I doubt you would--you'd hear something along the following lines, "The word 'lucky' is shorthand to describe people whose measured scores exceed their true scores; whereas the word 'unlucky' is a useful shorthand description for people whose measured scores are lower than their true scores." Other people think I'm grinding you into dust. I'm conducting an experiment, to see how many different ways you can misunderstand statistics. I'm still floored by your ability to continuously change your story with each post and still not manage to be right, even by accident. Most people at least unwittingly stumble across a correct thought every so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Other people think I'm grinding you into dust. I'm conducting an experiment, to see how many different ways you can misunderstand statistics. I'm still floored by your ability to continuously change your story with each post and still not manage to be right, even by accident. Most people at least unwittingly stumble across a correct thought every so often. Sounds like a TV special: "Blind Squirrels dont always find a nut: the story of HA's posting history on TBD" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Sounds like a TV special: "Blind Squirrels dont always find a nut: the story of HA's posting history on TBD" See. Now that was funny. ( LA, please note Ramius's post. Cause, rumor has it, you're not funny ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Other people think I'm grinding you into dust. I'm conducting an experiment, to see how many different ways you can misunderstand statistics. I'm still floored by your ability to continuously change your story with each post and still not manage to be right, even by accident. Most people at least unwittingly stumble across a correct thought every so often. Ooooohh. Ramius thinks you're grinding me into dust. The opinion of that pea-brain really matters to me. You know something? Ramius wouldn't know a statistic even if one bit him on his behind. Then again, if he felt something biting him on his behind, he'd probably just assume it was you. The fact that you think I'm changing my "story" only underscores my earlier comments about how very badly you understand my posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 Ooooohh. Ramius thinks you're grinding me into dust. The opinion of that pea-brain really matters to me. You know something? Ramius wouldn't know a statistic even if one bit him on his behind. Then again, if he felt something biting him on his behind, he'd probably just assume it was you. The fact that you think I'm changing my "story" only underscores my earlier comments about how very badly you understand my posts. What i find most amusing, is that aside from your refusal to answer many of the questions posed to you, you also refuse to acknowledge these: http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...73>1=9145 http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...entid=100154188 But then again, thats expected of you. When you are posed with a question that disproves all of your asinine ideas, you ignore it. When you are faced with data that disproves whatever statistical theory about QB's and the OL you are trying to push, you ignore that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 What i find most amusing, is that aside from your refusal to answer many of the questions posed to you, you also refuse to acknowledge these: http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...73>1=9145 http://health.msn.com/pregnancykids/kidshe...entid=100154188 But then again, thats expected of you. When you are posed with a question that disproves all of your asinine ideas, you ignore it. When you are faced with data that disproves whatever statistical theory about QB's and the OL you are trying to push, you ignore that too. The links which you posted are broken. Despite that, there's absolutely nothing of greater value you've ever contributed since you came here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The links which you posted are broken. Despite that, there's absolutely nothing of greater value you've ever contributed since you came here. looks like my links regressed to the mean...try these Intelligence Article #1 Intelligence Link #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 looks like my links regressed to the mean...try these Intelligence Article #1 Intelligence Link #2 The first article talked about a researcher's announcement that there are seven types of "intelligence." And while he's certainly got a point about the fact that some people are more socially aware, or more self-aware, than are others. But you seem to hope that his work would undermine the concept of g, or general intelligence. It does not. The research support for g is strong. In addition, every human language in the world has a word that means "smart" or "intelligent" in a generic sense. The second article strongly implied that environmental differences are a strong factor in causing intelligence differences between one child and the next. While that's true, environment's role in creating intellectual differences becomes weaker as people move toward adulthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The first article talked about a researcher's announcement that there are seven types of "intelligence." And while he's certainly got a point about the fact that some people are more socially aware, or more self-aware, than are others. But you seem to hope that his work would undermine the concept of g, or general intelligence. It does not. The research support for g is strong. In addition, every human language in the world has a word that means "smart" or "intelligent" in a generic sense. The second article strongly implied that environmental differences are a strong factor in causing intelligence differences between one child and the next. While that's true, environment's role in creating intellectual differences becomes weaker as people move toward adulthood. Nope, the first article has nothing to do with g. I am not trying to disprove g at all, but the fact that you lack the reading comprehension to realize this doesnt surprise me. My statements all along have been 1. Environment plays a large role in determining intelligence (shown by #2) 2. While g does determine intelligence, it is impossible to put any sort of value on g, or intelligence 3. IQ is a near worthless way of determining someone's intelligence (shown by #1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 3. IQ is a near worthless way of determining someone's intelligence (shown by #1) Watching a guy flounder around for four months arguing that error and variance are the same thing because a die has a true average roll of 3.5 is a pretty good method, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 9, 2007 Share Posted March 9, 2007 The research support for g is strong. Based on your reading of ONE SINGLE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Holy crap... In addition, every human language in the world has a word that means "smart" or "intelligent" in a generic sense. Well, sh--. I'm sure that's enough to overturn a century of biology and genetics research. I'm sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Nope, the first article has nothing to do with g. I am not trying to disprove g at all, but the fact that you lack the reading comprehension to realize this doesnt surprise me. My statements all along have been 1. Environment plays a large role in determining intelligence (shown by #2) 2. While g does determine intelligence, it is impossible to put any sort of value on g, or intelligence 3. IQ is a near worthless way of determining someone's intelligence (shown by #1) Your statement #2 is mistaken. A well-designed intelligence test is almost synonymous with a highly g-loaded intelligence test. And the more g-loaded a test is, the more its results correlate with g. Studies of adopted children show that, in childhood, their I.Q.s do tend to correlate with their adoptive mothers. But as they get older, that correlation disappears, while the correlation with their biological mothers becomes stronger than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 9, 2007 Author Share Posted March 9, 2007 Based on your reading of ONE SINGLE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Holy crap... Well, sh--. I'm sure that's enough to overturn a century of biology and genetics research. I'm sold. Are you really this ignorant of the last century of biological and genetics research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts