A peer-reviewed study about Wikipedia's accuracy

[Orton's Arm]

That would explain everything. It explains his lack of rational thought, his lack of an elementary math and science education, and it would also explain why he has diarrhea of the mouth even when completely and totally incorrect. He does have the typical lawyer "keep on talking even when you are wrong, and flip-flop as many time as necessary to try and prove you are correct" mentality.

As I said earlier, you just looooooove to accuse me of flip-flopping. Even though there's no justification for doing so. But this time around, I'll add that you loooove to accuse me of a lack of rational thought. Lenin said to always accuse your enemies of that which you yourself are guilty. You've been surprisingly good about following his advice.

[Orton's Arm]

Not sure where he is. He prolly needed to clean the McFryer between serving breakfast and lunch. I dont want sausage mcmuffin grease on fries, you know.

 

I still want him to explain how 0.8 heritability means you get 80% of the trait that your parents had. This means that in a few generations, we'll all be morons with 14 IQ's. So i'm not sure how his definition plays in with his eugenics plan. At that point, even the smartest people wont be smart enough to build more power lines to expand the grid.

 

Also, by doing some basic calculations according to his 0.8 heritability definition, and assuming that the average generation is 50 years with a current IQ of 100, the average IQ back in ancient rome was somewhere around 200,000. Mind-boggling, isnt it?

What was it like riding the retard bus to school every morning?

[DC Tom]

There is variation in die rolling from one roll to the next, and it's accurate to describe that variation as luck-based. Whenever you have a test/retest situation, with the outcomes of both determined by random chance or luck, extreme scores on the initial test are generally followed by regression toward the mean on the retest. My quote you provided from earlier is therefore accurate.

 

Let me make sure I'm clear on what you're saying: you claim that your quote that a single die has a true value of 3.5, and any roll NOT 3.5 represents error, is accurate.

 

Measurement error is one possible method for an element of random chance to be introduced into a test/retest situation. For example, your measured height could equal your true height + (Normdist, SD 1, Mean 0). With the introduction of such an error term, the correlation between test and retest falls below 1, and hence there will be regression toward the mean.

 

Yes, regression to the mean OF THE ERROR. Because what varies between tests IS THE ERROR. That's the distribution in which the variance is, so that's the distribution in which the regression is, so THE ERROR REGRESSES TO THE MEAN OF THE ERROR. If I'm 193 cm tall, and some measurement device measures me as 192 cm tall, the next measurement is not going to regress toward the mean population height of 180 cm, it's going to regress toward the mean ERROR OF THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS of ZERO. Because THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME, you jackass.

 

Why are you still trying to discuss this? You've already proven you don't even know simple algebra. You think you're convincing anyone you know statistics?

[Orton's Arm]

Let me make sure I'm clear on what you're saying: you claim that your quote that a single die has a true value of 3.5, and any roll NOT 3.5 represents error, is accurate.

Yes, regression to the mean OF THE ERROR. Because what varies between tests IS THE ERROR. That's the distribution in which the variance is, so that's the distribution in which the regression is, so THE ERROR REGRESSES TO THE MEAN OF THE ERROR. If I'm 193 cm tall, and some measurement device measures me as 192 cm tall, the next measurement is not going to regress toward the mean population height of 180 cm, it's going to regress toward the mean ERROR OF THE MEASUREMENT PROCESS of ZERO. Because THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME, you jackass.

 

Why are you still trying to discuss this? You've already proven you don't even know simple algebra. You think you're convincing anyone you know statistics?

You know what? I'm tired of this endless debate. So I'll type out a nice, polite, intellectually rigorous post, in hopes of getting things squared away once and for all.

 

So yes, the proximate cause of the movement on the retest is the fact that the error term will have an average value of zero when people are retested. The expected value of the retest movement is in the direction of the population mean. Hopefully we can shut down this over-long argument by finally coming to an agreement on what's happening.

Givens:

- A normally distributed population

- A measurement mechanism with a normally distributed error term with a mean value of zero

- An initial test

- A subset being retested. All members of the subset must have obtained either above-average or below-average scores on the initial test.

 

Given the above, you'll have the following:

- A normal distribution for the entire population

- A probabilistic error distribution for each member of the population. (By that I mean that each member's most likely score is his or her true score, with a 64% chance of scoring within 1 error-dist SD of his or her true, etc.)

- When you retest the subset, their scores will, on average, move in the direction of the population's mean. This is due to the following factors:

* Any subset consisting of exclusively below-average members will have a disproportionate number who got unlucky on the test

* Any subset consisting of exclusively above-average members will have a disproportionate number who got lucky on the test

* In retesting the subset, each member's probabilistic error distribution will, on average, reset to zero.

* In simpler terms, the subset was initially selected in part based on luck the first time around. Upon being retested, that luck goes away, and the subset's scores move in the direction of the population's mean. This is not to say that every member of the subset will move in that direction. On the contrary, some members will move away from the population's mean upon being retested. But the effect of those few members who move away from the mean will be more than offset by the many who move closer. The average member of the subset will move closer to the mean upon being retested.

[DC Tom]

You know what? I'm tired of this endless debate. So I'll type out a nice, polite, intellectually rigorous post, in hopes of getting things squared away once and for all.

 

So yes, the proximate cause of the movement on the retest is the fact that the error term will have an average value of zero when people are retested. The expected value of the retest movement is in the direction of the population mean. Hopefully we can shut down this over-long argument by finally coming to an agreement on what's happening.

Givens:

- A normally distributed population

- A measurement mechanism with a normally distributed error term with a mean value of zero

- An initial test

- A subset being retested. All members of the subset must have obtained either above-average or below-average scores on the initial test.

 

Given the above, you'll have the following:

- A normal distribution for the entire population

- A probabilistic error distribution for each member of the population. (By that I mean that each member's most likely score is his or her true score, with a 64% chance of scoring within 1 error-dist SD of his or her true, etc.)

- When you retest the subset, their scores will, on average, move in the direction of the population's mean. This is due to the following factors:

 

* Any subset consisting of exclusively below-average members will have a disproportionate number who got unlucky on the test

* Any subset consisting of exclusively above-average members will have a disproportionate number who got lucky on the test

* In retesting the subset, each member's probabilistic error distribution will, on average, reset to zero.

* In simpler terms, the subset was initially selected in part based on luck the first time around. Upon being retested, that luck goes away, and the subset's scores move in the direction of the population's mean. This is not to say that every member of the subset will move in that direction. On the contrary, some members will move away from the population's mean upon being retested. But the effect of those few members who move away from the mean will be more than offset by the many who move closer. The average member of the subset will move closer to the mean upon being retested.

 

However, THIS IS NOT REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN OF THE POPULATION. You're just choosing a population arbitrarily that exhibits REGRESSION TO THE MEAN OF THE ERROR that is coincidentally in the same direction as the mean of the population. That does not make it regression toward the mean of the population, because THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DISTRIBUTIONS.

 

What's more, you just SAID they're two completely distributions. I highlighted it above, in case you're too stupid to notice what you wrote. And you're STILL persisting in treating the behavior of the error as being behavior of the population. But you can't do that, because THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The probability distribution of the error causes error on successive retests to regress toward the mean of the error. It does NOT cause members of the population to regress toward the mean of the population, because THE POPULATION AND THE ERROR ARE NOT THE SAME THING, HENCE THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

 

Jesus... Are you the world's only living brain donor or something? There's people here now who have absolutely no desire to understand statistics, who now have a better understanding of it than you just from reading my posts. You want to understand it...and you still can't. Un-be-!@#$ing-lievable.

[DC Tom]

Let's review just one small part of this circus. Way back in November, I said

 

 

And before I let this drop...remember back in February when I said that

 

And oh-by-the-way...you never said a die has an expected value of 3.5. You said it has a expected roll of 3.5.

 

To which your response was to deny it with:

 

Care to back that up with a link?

 

Well...ya got your link there, Einstein. Care to explain now how you never wrote something you wrote?

[Ramius]

What was it like riding the retard bus to school every morning?

 

in other words, you realize that you ar ein over your head, and dont know the first thing about genetics and heritability, hence the reason for your lack of answer, or you lack of a defense to what you posted.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I demand a count. What was longer: this debate or the Donahue is Satan-Drinks Baby Blood thread.

[DC Tom]

in other words, you realize that you ar ein over your head, and dont know the first thing about genetics and heritability, hence the reason for your lack of answer, or you lack of a defense to what you posted.

 

He doesn't need a defense. He's got a master's degree.

 

Of course, it's from the Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology. But it's a master's degree.

[DC Tom]

I demand a count. What was longer: this debate or the Donahue is Satan-Drinks Baby Blood thread.

 

Nobody asked you, you frog-loving philanderer. Go fly another kite.

[Alaska Darin]

in other words, you realize that you ar ein over your head, and dont know the first thing about genetics and heritability, hence the reason for your lack of answer, or you lack of a defense to what you posted.

Or: He actually thinks YOU'RE the retard. Which is pretty much the definition of irony.

[DC Tom]

Or: He actually thinks YOU'RE the retard. Which is pretty much the definition of irony.

 

But he's a retard with a master's at least. Probably in Food Services from McDonalds Hamburger University...but it is a masters.

[Ramius]

But he's a retard with a master's at least. Probably in Food Services from McDonalds Hamburger University...but it is a masters.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University

 

:lol:

 

Programs offered include the Bachelor's degree in Hamburgerology.

 

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hambu...university.html

 

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hambu...curriculum.html

 

I wonder what kind of classes you need to take. Statistics of the average french fry? Regression to the Happy meal? Heritability of lettuce between the big mac and mcfish? Or possibly my favorite, the general elective..."3.5 and you: rolling a die for fun and profit."

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University

 

:lol:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hambu...university.html

 

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hambu...curriculum.html

 

I wonder what kind of classes you need to take. Statistics of the average french fry? Regression to the Happy meal? Heritability of lettuce between the big mac and mcfish? Or possibly my favorite, the general elective..."3.5 and you: rolling a die for fun and profit."

 

Wrong, just wrong, !

[DC Tom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University

 

:lol:

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hambu...university.html

 

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/career/hambu...curriculum.html

 

I wonder what kind of classes you need to take. Statistics of the average french fry? Regression to the Happy meal? Heritability of lettuce between the big mac and mcfish? Or possibly my favorite, the general elective..."3.5 and you: rolling a die for fun and profit."

 

"Error, Variance, and the Chicken McNugget." It's a graduate level seminar.

[Orton's Arm]

Or: He actually thinks YOU'RE the retard. Which is pretty much the definition of irony.

Given the stupidity of just about everything I've ever seen Ramius post, I'm quite comfortable with my conclusion about his intelligence.

[Orton's Arm]

However, THIS IS NOT REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN OF THE POPULATION. You're just choosing a population arbitrarily that exhibits REGRESSION TO THE MEAN OF THE ERROR that is coincidentally in the same direction as the mean of the population. That does not make it regression toward the mean of the population, because THEY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DISTRIBUTIONS.

 

What's more, you just SAID they're two completely distributions. I highlighted it above, in case you're too stupid to notice what you wrote. And you're STILL persisting in treating the behavior of the error as being behavior of the population. But you can't do that, because THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME THING. The probability distribution of the error causes error on successive retests to regress toward the mean of the error. It does NOT cause members of the population to regress toward the mean of the population, because THE POPULATION AND THE ERROR ARE NOT THE SAME THING, HENCE THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

 

Jesus... Are you the world's only living brain donor or something? There's people here now who have absolutely no desire to understand statistics, who now have a better understanding of it than you just from reading my posts. You want to understand it...and you still can't. Un-be-!@#$ing-lievable.

How on earth do you think I'm guilty of "treating the behavior of the error as being behavior of the population"? As you pointed out, I acknowledged the probabilistic error distribution is distinct from the distribution of the underlying population. Nor is this any new revelation, as you can see for yourself if you go back and look at the methodology for my Monte Carlo simulation. Initially, I created a normally distributed population. Then I gave each member an I.Q. test with an error term (mean of zero and a SD of 1/4 the amount of the SD of the population distribution). So you can stop pompously repeating that kindergarten-level phrase about things which are different aren't the same.

 

We both (I hope) agree that in a test-retest situation, with a normally distributed population and a normal or uniform error distribution, those who obtain extreme scores the first time around will tend to score closer to the population's mean upon being retested. You point out that this isn't because the underlying values are moving toward the population mean (they're not) but because of what's going on in that error distribution. Fine. I understand that. I've understood that from the beginning, as you can see if you go back and reread my posts.

 

You seem to feel that "regression toward the mean" ought to mean "regression toward the mean of error" when referring to a test-retest situation with an imperfect test. I feel that whether you're right or wrong about that, "regression toward the mean" does mean "regression toward the population's mean" even in the test/retest situation. But given the fact that we are now (as far as I'm aware) in agreement about the underlying phenomenon and its effects, it would be stupid to spend another 50 pages arguing about a mere definition.

[Orton's Arm]

Masters degree in what field? And what University?

It's from a top-50 school, which makes it better than whatever "Degree in a Cracker Jack box" school Ramius is currently embarrassing. And I received a more rigorous education in statistics than did Ramius. Then again, Ramius's statistics education consisted of the following classes:

 

Degree in a Cracker Jack Box U course schedule

• Statistics 101: How to parrot the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"
  
• Statistics 102: How to call other people idiots for using statistics
  

[/dev/null]

It's from a top-50 school, which makes it better than whatever "Degree in a Cracker Jack box" school Ramius is currently embarrassing. And I received a more rigorous education in statistics than did Ramius. Then again, Ramius's statistics education consisted of the following classes:

 

Degree in a Cracker Jack Box U course schedule

• Statistics 101: How to parrot the phrase "correlation does not imply causation"
  
• Statistics 102: How to call other people idiots for using statistics
  

 

And when you graduate you get a prize

[Orton's Arm]

And when you graduate you get a prize

Let's just hope Ramius figures out he's not supposed to eat his prize.