A peer-reviewed study about Wikipedia's accuracy

[Orton's Arm]

Wow. Once again you are just as wrong as you have been over the past 5 months. You've made the following absurd claims in your posts, none of which bear any semblance of truth.

 

Math:

1. You claimed that it is possible to roll a die and roll a 3.5

2. You claimed that rolling a 6 if "more in error" than rolling a 4, even tho then both have equal probabilities of being rolled.

3. You do not understand the concept of variance in a distribution

4. You cant tell the difference between "error" and "luck" and "variance"

 

Biology:

5. You dont understand the concept of heritability

6. When presented with numerous links and textbooks claiming that heritability cannot be used to measure a single induvidual, you claim it can

7. You claim that intelligence is strictly genetic, and that differences in intelligence between different 2 people is due to "error" and "head injuries"

8. You claimed that correlation = heritability

9. You claimed that correlation = causation

 

and the list goes on...GG could easily come up with 2 dozen more ideas you are incorrect on in the field of economics

 

Once again, everyone else here sees you for the blowhard nazi moron that you are. You're the only one that doesnt.

Are you really as incapable of understanding my ideas as your above post indicates? Let me go through your little idiot list point by point:

1. I never claimed it was possible to roll a 3.5 on a die. That particular misrepresentation of my posts is one of the stupidest I've seen you make.

2. I made the observation that, if one were to attempt to use a single die roll to measure the average value of a die, rolling a 6 would result in a greater error than rolling a 4. It's an obscure point I'll admit, so I can see how you'd be too stupid to understand it.

3. Nothing I've written could possibly justify your idiotic accusation that I don't understand variance in a distribution.

4. Nor could anything I've written possibly justify your moronic, drool-laden accusation that I can't tell the difference between error, luck, and variance.

5. For you of all people to claim that I don't understand the concept of heritability is an absolute joke. That's like O.J. Simpson accusing Stephen Hawking of not understanding math.

6. You presented me with one textbook quote, not the "numerous" quotes you claim. And while the quote evidently confused your pea-sized brain, its meaning was clear. If the heritability for shyness is 40%, then on average, 40% of shyness differences have been determined by genetics. Some individuals will find that more than 40% of their shyness level is driven by genes, while others will find that less than 40% has been determined by genetics.

7. I wrote that observed differences in adult-level intelligence are driven mostly by genetics. They are. The 20% that isn't explained by genetics is, in fact, due to radical environmental factors--such as severe head injuries--or to measurement error.

8. Let's say you have two parents that are 1 SD above the mean. What's the expected value of their children? If it's 0 SDs above the mean, then narrow-sense heritability is 0%. If it's 1 SD above the mean, then narrow-sense heritability is 100%. So yes, narrow-sense heritability is the same as the correlation between parent characteristics and those of their children. But why I'm bothering to explain a complex concept like this to someone with your evident lack of brains is simply beyond me.

9. I never claimed that correlation = causation, but I'm not surprised that your stupidity managed to put those words into my mouth. Does your constant drool damage your keyboard, or do you use a vinyl protector?

[Ramius]

i'm a moron.

 

Heritability and environmentability are abstract concepts. No matter what the numbers are, heritability estimates tell us nothing about the specific genes that contribute to a trait.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm a drooling marrroon. No, not marrroon. Muroon. Or was it muhron? How do you spell that word?

Here's the part of your little quote which you evidently "forgot" to include:

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. 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.

Notice the words "on average," you dolt. Do you happen to know how averages are calculated? Here's a hint: you take the values of individuals and average them together. The quote is merely pointing out that some people will be above this average, while others will be below it. That is, you can't assume that an exact 40% of your own shyness level is explained by genetic factors. But if you were to randomly select 100 people, you could be pretty sure that about 40% of the difference in shyness from one person to the next could be explained by genetic differences.

[Ramius]

Here's the part of your little quote which you evidently "forgot" to include:

 

Notice the words "on average," you dolt. Do you happen to know how averages are calculated? Here's a hint: you take the values of individuals and average them together. The quote is merely pointing out that some people will be above this average, while others will be below it. That is, you can't assume that an exact 40% of your own shyness level is explained by genetic factors. But if you were to randomly select 100 people, you could be pretty sure that about 40% of the difference in shyness from one person to the next could be explained by genetic differences.

 

yawn. more of your completely incorrect drivel. Dont you have big macs to make? Or have you been switched over to the McFish for the time being, due to lent?

 

Wake me up when you finally understand that heritability tells us differences across a population, and does not apply to a single individual.

 

Also, wake me up when you finally decide to define and explain your version of psychometrics. (hint: you wont, because you dont understand, and because wikipedia contradicts what you have been saying)

[Orton's Arm]

yawn. more of your completely incorrect drivel. Dont you have big macs to make? Or have you been switched over to the McFish for the time being, due to lent?

 

Wake me up when you finally understand that heritability tells us differences across a population, and does not apply to a single individual.

 

Also, wake me up when you finally decide to define and explain your version of psychometrics. (hint: you wont, because you dont understand, and because wikipedia contradicts what you have been saying)

You still don't understand a single word of what we've been discussing, do you?

[Ramius]

You still don't understand a single word of what we've been discussing, do you?

 

funny, how wacka, me, tom and a host of others agree with me, yet you havent a soul to back you up...

 

and you think I'M wrong. priceless

[DC Tom]

funny, how wacka, me, tom and a host of others agree with me, yet you havent a soul to back you up...

 

and you think I'M wrong. priceless

 

He's got Wikipedia.

 

Well, that, and a completely unsubstantiated definition of "psychometrics".

[Orton's Arm]

funny, how wacka, me, tom and a host of others agree with me, yet you havent a soul to back you up...

 

and you think I'M wrong. priceless

I don't think you're wrong. I know you're wrong. Your inability to define the word "heritability," your inability to understand that a group average is calculated by averaging out the individuals of the group, your complete lack of knowledge of any form of psychometrics--these things all add up to you claiming to know everything, while actually knowing nothing.

[DC Tom]

I don't think you're wrong. I know you're wrong. Your inability to define the word "heritability," your inability to understand that a group average is calculated by averaging out the individuals of the group, your complete lack of knowledge of any form of psychometrics--these things all add up to you claiming to know everything, while actually knowing nothing.

 

Wha-...bu-...wh-...bu-bu-but...THOSE ARE ALL YOUR MISTAKES, DIPSHIT!!!!

 

Stop attributing your ignorance to the rest of us.

[John Adams]

funny, how wacka, me, tom and a host of others agree with me, yet you havent a soul to back you up...

 

and you think I'M wrong. priceless

 

WTF?!?

[DC Tom]

WTF?!?

 

Forget it, he's rolling.

[Orton's Arm]

Wha-...bu-...wh-...bu-bu-but...THOSE ARE ALL YOUR MISTAKES, DIPSHIT!!!!

 

Stop attributing your ignorance to the rest of us.

Wrong. Ramius can't define the word "heritability" to save his own life. He thinks that a group average can be calculated without reference to the individuals of the group! He's too stupid to understand the quote he provided, he's too stupid to understand what an average is anyway, he's too stupid to know what an expected value is, he's too stupid to understand the first word of my (or anyone else's) posts, he's too stupid to understand the test/retest effect, he's too stupid to avoid quoting Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould, he's too stupid to know when he's out of his depth. He is, in short, too stupid for words.

[Cornerville]

funny, how wacka, me, tom and a host of others agree with me, yet you havent a soul to back you up...

 

and you think I'M wrong. priceless

 

 

HA has this guy on his side:

 

McDonalds Cookie Monster

[DC Tom]

Wrong. Ramius can't define the word "heritability" to save his own life. He thinks that a group average can be calculated without reference to the individuals of the group! He's too stupid to understand the quote he provided, he's too stupid to understand what an average is anyway, he's too stupid to know what an expected value is, he's too stupid to understand the first word of my (or anyone else's) posts, he's too stupid to understand the test/retest effect, he's too stupid to avoid quoting Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould, he's too stupid to know when he's out of his depth. He is, in short, too stupid for words.

 

Too stupid to know what an "expected value" is? This coming from the preternatural moron who said a die has a "true average roll" of 3.5????

 

This is like arguing with a Tickle Me Elmo doll. You get the same shallow, unvarying preschool-level shtick over and over and over, no matter what you do.

[Orton's Arm]

Too stupid to know what an "expected value" is? This coming from the preternatural moron who said a die has a "true average roll" of 3.5????

 

This is like arguing with a Tickle Me Elmo doll. You get the same shallow, unvarying preschool-level shtick over and over and over, no matter what you do.

Good grief! The analogy I initially used may have been a little obscure, but it shouldn't have been as confusing to you (or to Ramius) as all that. For the purposes of our discussion, someone's "true" I.Q. was defined as the average score they'd get if they took the test 1000 times (assuming no learning effect or fatigue effect).

 

You give someone an I.Q. test one time, to estimate their average score over 1000 tests. If you want to bring dice into the discussion--which you did--that'd be like rolling a die one time, in order to estimate the die's average value if rolled 1000 times. It's really not that difficult an analogy; though I'm not exactly surprised that you and your wife Ramius lack the ability to understand it.

[DC Tom]

Good grief! The analogy I initially used may have been a little obscure, but it shouldn't have been as confusing to you (or to Ramius) as all that. For the purposes of our discussion, someone's "true" I.Q. was defined as the average score they'd get if they took the test 1000 times (assuming no learning effect or fatigue effect).

 

You give someone an I.Q. test one time, to estimate their average score over 1000 tests. If you want to bring dice into the discussion--which you did--that'd be like rolling a die one time, in order to estimate the die's average value if rolled 1000 times. It's really not that difficult an analogy; though I'm not exactly surprised that you and your wife Ramius lack the ability to understand it.

 

It wasn't "obscure", it was blitheringly stupid. You tried to explain regression toward the mean with a system of uniformly distributed values that will thus not regress to the fictitious concept you introduced that, despite being fictitious, was incorrect nonetheless!!! And you chose to use that analogy immediately after I presented you an example that was a clear, concise, and accurate representation of the very concept you're still misunderstanding.

 

Virtually all of the couple hundred pages of argument following that stem directly from your complete inability to comprehend the very basic fact that your analogy was sh-- and to say "You know what...that was pretty !@#$ing dumb of me." Instead, five months later, you're still trying to convince everyone that a pathetically bad analogy is an accurate example of regression.

 

And THAT is why you're a !@#$ing moron. You keep insisting the sky is orange, and trying to hide it by convincing everyone that "orange" really means "blue".

[Orton's Arm]

It wasn't "obscure", it was blitheringly stupid. You tried to explain regression toward the mean with a system of uniformly distributed values that will thus not regress to the fictitious concept you introduced that, despite being fictitious, was incorrect nonetheless!!! And you chose to use that analogy immediately after I presented you an example that was a clear, concise, and accurate representation of the very concept you're still misunderstanding.

 

Virtually all of the couple hundred pages of argument following that stem directly from your complete inability to comprehend the very basic fact that your analogy was sh-- and to say "You know what...that was pretty !@#$ing dumb of me." Instead, five months later, you're still trying to convince everyone that a pathetically bad analogy is an accurate example of regression.

 

And THAT is why you're a !@#$ing moron. You keep insisting the sky is orange, and trying to hide it by convincing everyone that "orange" really means "blue".

Do you hear me bringing up that dice example to try to explain regression toward the mean? No. I've tried to pound that concept through your three foot skull through various methods, most especially the Duke/Stanford/et al articles. And you know what? I do think that, at some level, after a countless number of pages, you now understand the test/retest effect. Whether you consistently admit to understanding it is another story entirely.

 

What you don't understand--what you're shockingly ignorant of--is my own position on the topics. I've pointed out that the test/retest effect can and does create the appearance that bright parents tend to have children that aren't quite as above-average as their parents. But from the very beginning, I've understood that the test/retest effect is a separate phenomenon from actual movement toward the population's mean. And we could have had that misunderstanding cleared up 60 pages back had your communication style relied less on the insupportable accusation, and more on, um, actual communication. You know, that thing that 99% of people do when they're trying to get a complex concept cleared up.

[Ramius]

Good grief! The analogy I initially used may have been a little obscure, but it shouldn't have been as confusing to you (or to Ramius) as all that. For the purposes of our discussion, someone's "true" I.Q. was defined as the average score they'd get if they took the test 1000 times (assuming no learning effect or fatigue effect).

 

You give someone an I.Q. test one time, to estimate their average score over 1000 tests. If you want to bring dice into the discussion--which you did--that'd be like rolling a die one time, in order to estimate the die's average value if rolled 1000 times. It's really not that difficult an analogy; though I'm not exactly surprised that you and your wife Ramius lack the ability to understand it.

 

and you still dont understand the difference between one individual and the differences across multiple indivuduals. What scares me the most was that you read a link that proves the exact opposite what you were saying, applied your patented retard translator, and somehoe claimed that it showed you were were correct.

 

And you still havent answered the question of whats the average value of a die with sides cat, dog, mouse, bear, fish, and idiot (holcombs arm was too big to fit on the die)

[Alaska Darin]

And you still havent answered the question of whats the average value of a die with sides cat, dog, mouse, bear, fish, and idiot (holcombs arm was too big to fit on the die)

I'm going to go with "Platypus-point-five." I think I'm finally getting the Holcomb's Arm "theory."

[DC Tom]

Do you hear me bringing up that dice example to try to explain regression toward the mean? No. I've tried to pound that concept through your three foot skull through various methods, most especially the Duke/Stanford/et al articles. And you know what? I do think that, at some level, after a countless number of pages, you now understand the test/retest effect. Whether you consistently admit to understanding it is another story entirely.

 

What you don't understand--what you're shockingly ignorant of--is my own position on the topics. I've pointed out that the test/retest effect can and does create the appearance that bright parents tend to have children that aren't quite as above-average as their parents. But from the very beginning, I've understood that the test/retest effect is a separate phenomenon from actual movement toward the population's mean. And we could have had that misunderstanding cleared up 60 pages back had your communication style relied less on the insupportable accusation, and more on, um, actual communication. You know, that thing that 99% of people do when they're trying to get a complex concept cleared up.

 

No, I brought up the dice example. You the proceeded to butcher it out of ignorance into something not of this world, then tried to back it up from web sites from Stanford that you didn't understand.