Taro T

If you assume a normal distribution of the sample and a normal distribution of the measurement error, the average of people who had a 140 on the test would have a lower score. But that is due to the normal distributions, not due to the measurement error. A negative bias in the error term would give you similar result. A positive bias would produce results that are contradictory to your expectations. But the reason that subsequent test scores will be lowered is due to the normal distribution of the sample. The phenomenon you are describing occurs because the sample population is normally distributed, not because error is causing the the retest scores to be lowered on average. I think the reason you appear to be confused is because you are assuming that any observed variation of a value from the "true" value must be due to error. It doesn't. There are myriad factors which can produce the variance (including pure random chance). In the classic height measurement example that you are attempting to restate, the regression toward the mean was not in the measurement of the height of men; it was in the measurement of the height of their sons. There would be microscopically small measurement error in those samples, but yet very tall men typically have sons that are shorter than they are and very short men typically have sons that are taller than them. But even then, it doesn't always occur that way. If a very tall man has a son, it is possible that the child upon reaching adulthood would be even taller than he is or if a very short man had a son the child could be even shorter than he is. There you have regression to the mean with absolutely no measurement error to speak of. You have chosen one extremely limited example and have attempted by the basis of how you have extremely narrowly defined your example to show that error causes regression to the mean in general. It doesn't. The regression to the mean is caused, as your debating partners have stated, by the normal distribution of the population and variance within the samples of the population.

I found one other Wraith quote from earlier in the discussion where he explicitly tells our friend HA that error does not cause regression to the mean. But apparently that was before Wraith fully understood that saying error causes regression to the mean doesn't mean what it appears to mean due to some metaphorical allusion to something (unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to figure out what that something is).

Wraith stated in the quote that you are so fond of: Your hero Wraith explicitly stated that if you are saying measurement error causes regression to the mean that you are wrong. WHY would you use a metaphor that you claim to know is inaccurate / wrong?

Actually, if some guy were that confused that he actually entered the competition, wouldn't he have a leg up on the competition, so to speak?

I was not referring to anything in your IQ posts in my post. I was referring specifically to your quote "(m)easurement error causes the rubber band to stretch, and remeasuring causes it to snap back into place." Measurement error does not, can not, and will not cause a rubber band to stretch. The ONLY way to get a rubberband to stretch is to apply an external force. Barring an external force acting upon it, it will remain in its normal state where it holds the least potential energy. When you apply an external force to it, it will stretch (or compress) depending upon the force. You could apply that force while measuring the rubber band, but it would not be the "measurement error" causing the rubber band to stretch. It would be the force applied to the rubber band.

Actually, I pass up the opportunity to call the abominable snot smear an abominable snot smear several times every day. That I refer to something by its rightful and proper name doesn't mean I am worked up by it. It also doesn't mitigate your penchant for hyperbole on the subject.

No, an external force applied to a rubber band would cause it to stretch. Removal of that force would cause it to contract back to its normal dimensions. Measurement error does NOT cause a rubber band to stretch. Saying measurement error causes a rubber band to stretch is analagous to stating that measurement error causes a car to travel.

Is that what they're calling it these days?

Apus, show me ONE poster (other than John Slabyk) that has even IMPLIED that the abominable snot smear has "disrupt(ed)" his life. I truly doubt you can. The extreme rhetoric coming from the slug hater haters goes a long way toward keeping this "debate" running. Most of us that find the abominable snot smear abominable have spoken our peace long ago. No one is "crying" except maybe the people that hate the slug haters. I haven't cheered any less for the Sabres simply because they are wearing one of the, if not the, most ridiculous logos in pro sports history. That doesn't change the fact that they are wearing one of the, if not the, most ridiculous logo in pro sports history. It also doesn't change the fact that the Sabres WOULD sell a LOT more merchandise if they would, in fact, sell 3rd jersey merchandise. Nor does it change the fact that the Sabres would have sold a lot more merchandise had the primary sweaters not had an abominable snot smear on it. There are many reasons why this merchandise is selling. Very few of them include the abominable snot smear NOT being a ridiculous logo that stands for nothing. I hope they do win the SC this year (and the next, and the next, etc., etc.). Hopefully, when the banner goes up they use the logo they've stated they would wear if given the chance to win it on home ice. (Hint, it isn't the abominable snot smear that you feel just needs some tweaking.)

I thought about adding the phrase "or lack thereof" but figured it was understood (by nearly everyone).

IF the Sabres ever start selling the 3rds, I will get one. Until that day, they'll just have to live with my beer purchases (which will probably end up the equivalent of a couple of sweaters by the time the season is through). It strikes me as being FAR sillier to buy something I don't want just so I can feel smug about saving the team (or whatever).

Of course if you're sober enough to remember to drink water before you passout, er, fall asleep; then you probably wouldn't have had the hangover anyway.

So, does this officially put the number of threads regarding HA's math skills into double digits, or were we already there?

Wouldn't the actual true value be July 1-1/2? (Or July 1-3/4, counting Leap Days?)

Well, since it's been pretty much empirically proven that you CAN'T prove that to him, it's good that you don't have to prove it to him. (Something tells me that he will misinterpret that comment as well. ) HBD, btw.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. For our Canadian friends, HTG 10-1/2 months early. For the rest from around the globe, Happy November 23.

Beer and ballet dancers.

But will the Franklin mint issue commemorative President Franklin plates that may or may not appreciate in value like the lovely Gone With The Wind plates?

Don't forget the idiot White Sox wore shorts on occasion in '76. Baseball players wearing socks pulled up to their knees like soccer players and basketball shorts look REALLY ridiculous.

How did the Blue Jackets make it onto the list? How did the Preds make it for the wrong uni? How did only 1 basketball team make the list? And finally, how did the Sabres' new white uni not make the list?

Well Bruce Cockburn did say "you kill the best and buy the rest".

Prob'ly not. I think Davy Crickett would have won the Mexkin killin' vote. Darn rental car stands. Why'd he ever think that hangin' out at a Tex'n rental car stand would get him votes outside of Tennessee is still a mystery.