A peer-reviewed study about Wikipedia's accuracy

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Even Tom now understands the test/retest effect. At least, I think he does. The fact that you still don't get it shows your own stupidity. And the fact that you're actually making fun of it shows you lack the wisdom to keep silent on the many occasions when you don't know the first thing about what's being discussed.

 

Listen, bonehead. Let me explain this nice and simple, so that even a "McDonald's wouldn't hire me" reject like you can understand it. First, you give a group of people an IQ test. Some people are scored correctly, others get lucky, and an equal number get unlucky. Then you select a subset of the first group based on their test scores. This is the part you don't understand. Insofar as test scores are a result of luck, the group you selected got disproportionately lucky. Let's say that a test score is 90% due to something innate, and 10% due to luck. If that's the case, the average person in that subset you selected is only 90% as far from the population's mean as his test score says he is. When you retest the subset, the average score will move 10% closer to the mean.

 

Suppose you select a group of parents based on their test scores. Their test scores say they're 40 points above the population's mean I.Q. If the test is 10% based on luck, then they're only 36 points above the mean I.Q. Suppose their children have I.Q.s of 136. Does this decline in test scores imply the children aren't as smart as their parents? No.

 

Your inability to understand something even as simple as this is why you couldn't get hired at McDonald's.

 

I'll give you this: You're persistent.

 

Pernicious doesn't even begin to describe your tenacious clinging to an idea.

[DC Tom]

1. I never claimed that the specific genes which influence intelligence have been discovered.

2. A heritability for I.Q. means that, on average, 80% of intellectual differences are determined by genetics. Again, that 80% can be lower or higher for specific people, but you'd generally expect to see something extreme about the underlying environment if someone radically deviated from that 80%.

 

Jesus H !@#$ing Christ. How can you read:

 

"Heritability and environmentability are population concepts. It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment."

 

And respond with

 

"A heritability for I.Q. means that, on average, 80% of intellectual differences are determined by genetics."

 

What the !@#$ is your major malfunction?

[Orton's Arm]

Jesus H !@#$ing Christ. How can you read:

 

"Heritability and environmentability are population concepts. It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment."

 

And respond with

 

"A heritability for I.Q. means that, on average, 80% of intellectual differences are determined by genetics."

 

What the !@#$ is your major malfunction?

Precisely what part of the phrase "on average" are you too stupid to understand?

[DC Tom]

I've already given a definition for psychometrics. Apparently you are unable to do the same. You're also unable to point out any specific errors in my earlier post. Instead, you stick to general accusations, which are harder to refute.

 

Yes, everything you've written about psychometrics--from the initial accusation, to the subsequent refusal to substantiate it--has been 100% federally certified, credibility free.

 

Specific errors? ALL OF IT! And your pathetic attempt to get me to link to an explanation for you is transparent. Do your own homework.

[DC Tom]

Even Tom now understands the test/retest effect. At least, I think he does. The fact that you still don't get it shows your own stupidity. And the fact that you're actually making fun of it shows you lack the wisdom to keep silent on the many occasions when you don't know the first thing about what's being discussed.

 

Listen, bonehead. Let me explain this nice and simple, so that even a "McDonald's wouldn't hire me" reject like you can understand it. First, you give a group of people an IQ test. Some people are scored correctly, others get lucky, and an equal number get unlucky. Then you select a subset of the first group based on their test scores. This is the part you don't understand. Insofar as test scores are a result of luck, the group you selected got disproportionately lucky. Let's say that a test score is 90% due to something innate, and 10% due to luck. If that's the case, the average person in that subset you selected is only 90% as far from the population's mean as his test score says he is. When you retest the subset, the average score will move 10% closer to the mean.

 

Suppose you select a group of parents based on their test scores. Their test scores say they're 40 points above the population's mean I.Q. If the test is 10% based on luck, then they're only 36 points above the mean I.Q. Suppose their children have I.Q.s of 136. Does this decline in test scores imply the children aren't as smart as their parents? No.

 

Your inability to understand something even as simple as this is why you couldn't get hired at McDonald's.

 

Why do you keep clinging to this? I've already PROVED you wrong.

[Orton's Arm]

I'll give you this: You're persistent.

 

Pernicious doesn't even begin to describe your tenacious clinging to an idea.

I'm tenacious in the face of irrational, unthinking hostility. Whether I'd be equally stubborn in the face of enlightened commentary and intelligent, well-informed objections has yet to be seen.

[DC Tom]

Precisely what part of the phrase "on average" are you too stupid to understand?

 

Precisely what part of "IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT..." are you too stupid to understand? The article SPECIFICALLY says that heritability IS NOT DEFINED how you're using it.

[Orton's Arm]

Specific errors? ALL OF IT! And your pathetic attempt to get me to link to an explanation for you is transparent. Do your own homework.

The only thing that's pathetic is your need to throw out vague, unsubstantiated, ignorant accusations.

[DC Tom]

The only thing that's pathetic is your need to throw out vague, unsubstantiated, ignorant accusations.

 

Then prove they're ignorant. What's the definition of psychometrics?

 

You can't tell me, because you don't know it.

[Orton's Arm]

Precisely what part of "IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT..." are you too stupid to understand? The article SPECIFICALLY says that heritability IS NOT DEFINED how you're using it.

Did Ramius write that post for you? Because I'd expect something this flat-out stupid from him much moreso than from you.

 

Say that the heritability for shyness is 40% at the group level. Well, Einstein, where on earth do you think that 40% figure came from? Here's a little hint: you can't get a heritability of 40% at the group level if it's 0% heritable at the individual level. That'd be like saying, "The average income for a Buffalonian is $40,000, even though no individual Buffalo resident makes more than $0 a year."

 

See? A group average means that some individuals fall above the average, while others fall below it. That's the way averages work, you nitwit. Go back to grammar school and start learning this stuff.

[Ramius]

Then prove they're ignorant. What's the definition of psychometrics?

 

You can't tell me, because you don't know it.

 

leave him alone for a few minutes please. he's conferring with the burger flippers, and its causing a big delay at the drive-thru window.

[Orton's Arm]

Then prove they're ignorant. What's the definition of psychometrics?

 

You can't tell me, because you don't know it.

I've given you a correct definition of psychometrics. You can't give any definition, nor can you substantiate the psychometrics-related accusations you've made against me. Hey, for that matter, you can't substantiate any of the accusations you've made against me.

[Orton's Arm]

Why do you keep clinging to this? I've already PROVED you wrong.

You haven't proven anything in the regression toward the mean thread, except for your unheard-of ability to misunderstand fairly basic posts.

[Ramius]

Precisely what part of "IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT..." are you too stupid to understand? The article SPECIFICALLY says that heritability IS NOT DEFINED how you're using it.

 

Since he doesnt understand that it is impossible to roll a 3.5 on a die, and therefore cant distinguish between an individual measurement and a distribution, i have no delusions that he'll actually be able to understand what the link said about heritability. I'm tryig to apply a concept he doesnt understand to a word and an idea he cant define. kind of like asking a 5 year old to do calculus. The difference is that after a few minutes, the 5-year old will readily admit that he doesnt understand calculus, he wont blather on for 5 months claiming that yellow fingerpaint is the answer to 5 + x = 8, like HA has.

 

The link was mainly for other posters to read and understand, and then for them to watch him completely and incoherently butcher the comprehension of what was quoted.

[Orton's Arm]

Since he doesnt understand that it is impossible to roll a 3.5 on a die, and therefore cant distinguish between an individual measurement and a distribution, i have no delusions that he'll actually be able to understand what the link said about heritability. I'm tryig to apply a concept he doesnt understand to a word and an idea he cant define. kind of like asking a 5 year old to do calculus. The difference is that after a few minutes, the 5-year old will readily admit that he doesnt understand calculus, he wont blather on for 5 months claiming that yellow fingerpaint is the answer to 5 + x = 8, like HA has.

 

The link was mainly for other posters to read and understand, and then for them to watch him completely and incoherently butcher the comprehension of what was quoted.

You moron, 5 + x = 8 is algebra, not calculus. If you're going to be your usual self and employ a pure argumentum ad hominum strategy, at least get your terms right.

 

And the only people who didn't understand the quote from earlier were you and your husband Tom. A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference.

[DC Tom]

I've given you a correct definition of psychometrics. You can't give any definition, nor can you substantiate the psychometrics-related accusations you've made against me. Hey, for that matter, you can't substantiate any of the accusations you've made against me.

 

You've given me your definition. I'm waiting for you to try to give me a correct definition before I begin discussing it with you.

[DC Tom]

You haven't proven anything in the regression toward the mean thread, except for your unheard-of ability to misunderstand fairly basic posts.

 

Whereas my dice example was excruciatingly clear to anyone but yourself, I'm pretty sure that no one other than you is under any delusion you know what you're talking about. Anyone who had any doubt is certainly convinced by your phenomenal "X doesn't measure individuals, but since X measures a population average, X measures some individuals" nonsense above.

[Orton's Arm]

You've given me your definition. I'm waiting for you to try to give me a correct definition before I begin discussing it with you.

And I don't see why I should continue to respond to accusations that

• Demonstrate no knowledge of the underlying subject matter
  
• Don't make specific claims. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 isn't equal to 4, you need to say whether you think 2 + 2 = 3 or 5.
  
• Aren't supported by any external link.
  

[DC Tom]

And I don't see why I should continue to respond to accusations that

• Demonstrate no knowledge of the underlying subject matter
  
• Don't make specific claims. If you're telling me that 2 + 2 isn't equal to 4, you need to say whether you think 2 + 2 = 3 or 5.
  
• Aren't supported by any external link.
  

 

Then show me the external link that supports your definition of psychometrics. You can't. There isn't one.

[Orton's Arm]

Then show me the external link that supports your definition of psychometrics. You can't. There isn't one.

Nor is there a link which supports yours. You haven't provided a definition, because to do so might actually move the discussion forward.