Orton's Arm

Your die rolling example proves that when initial results are determined entirely by random chance, an extreme value on the initial test is likely to be followed by a value closer to the mean. The Hyperstats article made the same point. I.Q. test scores are determined mostly by something innate (there's a strong correlation between test and retest) but also somewhat by random chance (scores vary somewhat from test to retest). To the extent that I.Q. scores are due to random chance, extreme scores on an initial test are likely to regress toward the population's mean on a retest. And yes, the element of random chance for an I.Q. test does represent measurement error.

I don't have any deep needs that would be fulfilled by making fun of your school. So I'll pass on your offer. And I'm not that worried about people making fun of my school. Except that, based on my lack of respect for some of the people on here, I do feel it could carry over into the hiring process. And I don't want to do that to my fellow graduates.

This evening, the sun set, and DC Tom was wrong. What else is new? The phrase "funding shortfall" is shorthand for the difference between projected funds and needed funds. Which begs the question, needed for what? Is it the money needed to replace decaying infrastructure, as you say? Or are the funds also needed to build new infrastructure for the Third World colonists? Yahoo's article doesn't answer that question. For you to state that the article does answer this question just makes you look stupid.

I read your above post. The last little bit sounds like you're simply echoing the view of me that Ramius has worked so hard to create. Do you honestly remember a specific example of me confusing correlation with causation? I doubt it, because there haven't been any. Statistical science simply isn't the right tool to answer questions about causation. Statistics can, however, tell us about correlations. Rigorous real world thinking, in combination with equally rigorous statistical methodology, can help us answer the question of causation. I enjoy intelligent debate about possible real world explanations for observed correlations. Is a given correlation a coincidence? The result of some underlying factor? Is A causing B, or is B causing A? Unfortunately, my attempts to participate in that kind of cerebral discussion have generally been drowned out by the name-calling of the Bungee Jumpers and the Ramiuses of these boards. You raised a number of strong points in the rest of your post. That doesn't make jjamie's earlier post any weaker though. I'll agree with you on the following: - Liberals and radicals very often eschew intelligent debate in favor of name-calling. It seems to come naturally to a lot of them anyway, but name-calling has actually been orchestrated by Democratic Party strategists; as well as by people working for organizations further to the left. - Many leftist organizations (including just about every radical leftist organization) engages in intellectually dishonest tactics. - Throwing money at schools won't solve their problems. We already spend more per child than anyone else in the world, yet our schools produce the worst results of any industrialized nation. But that's not really addressing jjamie's point. He merely pointed out that increasing the superintendent's salary would improve the quality of the applicant pool. Presumably, anyone willing to work as a school administrator for $50K would also be willing to do the job for $500K. But that added salary would bring in additional applicants, some of whom might be better qualified than the man who currently has the job. The question is whether the school board would hire the best qualified applicant, or whether it'd hire the applicant with the most friends on the school board. - The heavy regulation of the school system prevents market forces from producing an efficient outcome. The inefficiency takes two forms: money is being wasted, and children aren't being educated.

We got three years of middle-of-the-road play out of him, plus a couple of third round draft picks. That'd be reasonable for a guy picked in the second round. For a first round pick, it's mildly disappointing.

You give a person one I.Q. test to estimate what their score would be if given 1000 tests. You give an NFL prospect just one 40 yard dash test to see how he'd do if asked to run the 40 yard dash 1000 times. To make the die rolling example analogous to an I.Q. test, you have to roll a die once to measure its average value. But getting back to the point you were making with your own die rolling example--I'll agree that rolling a pair of dice is a good process for selecting a discrete value from a statistical distribution. So what?

You did quite a bit of work to prove yourself right. I'll give you that. To be honest, I don't care about this particular argument nearly as much as you do. But before I let this go, I'll point out, once again, that the article itself said, The study you found didn't include funding shortfalls caused by the need to increase capacity. That's fine, but that exclusion wasn't specified in Yahoo's article.

I'm hopeful my alma mater isn't as intolerant of intellectual freedom as you imply. And while my alma mater is pretty similar to most other top-50 schools, I've no doubt that you and Bungee Jumper would make fun of it anyway.

It's messed up posts like the above which caused our discussion to drag on as long as it did. In your dice rolling example, regression toward the mean happens the initial results were obtained by random chance. An extreme value on an initial roll is likely to be followed by regression toward the mean on a subsequent roll. Now let's say test results are entirely dependent on something innate, such as height. If Joe measures 6'5" on Monday, odds are he'll measure 6'5" when you remeasure him on Wednesday. I.Q. tests combine the qualities of the above two. Results are mostly based on something innate, in that your score on an initial test is a strong predictor of how well you'll do on a retest. But there's measurement error, which introduces an element of random chance into I.Q. test scores. Someone who obtains an above-average score on an initial I.Q. test is likely to be luckier than average, as well as smarter than average. On being retested, the luck portion of the score disappears, while the innate part remains. It's the disappearance of the luck part which causes test scores to move toward the population's mean in a test/retest situation. In my die rolling analogy, you've arbitrarily defined a die's "true" value as 3.5, and you attempt to measure this value by rolling it a single time. Hence, any roll will result in some measurement error, with extreme rolls entailing the greatest degree of error.

Show me something in the study you found which arrives at a total funding shortfall of $300 - $400 billion. Then maybe I'll believe you somehow managed to stumble across the right study.

Still wrong. The study you found "identifies a total capital investment need of $156.9 billion for 20 years." The article described a funding shortfall of $300 billion to $400 billion over the next 20 years. $156.9 billion is not the same as $300 billion - $400 billion. See? Things that are different are not the same.

DC Tom has at least one functioning brain cell.

Yes, I participated in the unending debate about regression toward the mean, as did Ramius and Bungee Jumper/DC Tom. Beyond that your memory fails you. I've written less than a handful of posts defending Wikipedia. And the people who keep bringing up the mean value of a die roll are Ramius and Bungee Jumper. The latter, by the way, is just one more example of intellectual dishonesty by those intent on discrediting me. For the purposes of the regression toward the mean discussion, I described someone's "true" I.Q. score as meaning, "the average score someone would get on an I.Q. test if they took it 1000 times, assuming no learning effect or fatigue effect." You then measure this "true" value by giving someone a single I.Q. test. Bungee Jumper subsequently brought dice rolling into the discussion. I responded to that by saying that if you wanted to draw a parallel between rolling a die and an I.Q. test, you'd have to define the "true" value of a die as 3.5, and you'd have to attempt to measure that value by rolling the die a single time. Ever since then, the two of them have put any given pair of ten year olds to shame with their constant and inane jokes about rolling a 3.5 on a die.

Does the PPP board have any particular reason for existence beyond the brainless repetition of whatever idiocy may have entered Tom's brain?

You'll notice the study you found came from The American Society of Civil Engineers. The American Society of Civil Engineers is not the Environmental Protection Agency. See? Things that are different are not the same. Next time try looking for the EPA's study of infrastructure needs.

Ah yes, once again Bungee Jumper feels the need to insult my math skills. You know, that would actually mean something if I felt you had even a basic understanding of my posts. You don't, and the errors you've made in portraying my views are breathtaking.

Some people are so easily amused. Truth be told, I'm somewhat glad DC Tom/Bungee Jumper/what SN should I use today?/ chose the avatar he did. It underscores my earlier point that he'd begin making fun of whichever university I'd attended, no matter what its pedigree. I'm glad I didn't open up my alma mater to that kind of juvenile attack.

Dude, jjamie12 got the better of you in this thread. And it's your fault for leaving yourself open to the objections he raised. I suggest you deal with that fact. Blaming the messenger just makes you look like a sore loser.

In your earlier, lengthy post, you made so many errors in describing my own position it wasn't even funny. A person of average intelligence should have been able to avoid that kind of embarrassment after about ten minutes of reading and thought. For you to engage in that basic, fundamental incomprehension after dragging these boards through 60+ unwelcome pages of debate is simply inexcusable. I wrote a long summary of where you went wrong in describing my posts. You didn't bother to read this; apparently because you have no interest in either a) correcting whatever miscommunication may have taken place between us, or b) sparing these boards another 60 - 70 pages of useless debate about questions which statisticians have already firmly settled. And once again you've failed to show even a basic understanding of the implications of Darwinism. Because now you're saying that the only way artificial selection can work is if the desired traits can be measured with little or no error. Do you honestly have this shallow an understanding about how natural and artificial selection work, or are you once again engaging in intellectual dishonesty to try to undermine what you claim to be "Nazi" beliefs?

What's creating your confusion is a) general reading comprehension issues, b) the fact that the statement in question was a little out of sync with the rest of the article. Maybe the context of the rest of the article made it seem like the EPA's study was strictly about replacing deteriorating infrastructure. But that's not what the article actually said. The nation's wastewater infrastructure is what's facing that $300 billion - $400 billion shortfall. Deterioration of existing capacity contributes to that shortfall. So does the need to build new capacity. Get that through your thick skull already.

Right. The $1.7 billion that just got approved is for communities with deteriorating sewage systems. The $300 - $400 billion shortfall the EPA described represents money that will be needed for the total wastewater infrastructure. See? The two things are different. THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME.

The fact that you think you understand my views sort of reminds me of a ten year old who thinks he's ready for the NFL.

Before screaming at me, you might want to at least try reading the relevant text. A novel concept for you, I know. Here are the exact words from the article: Nowhere in that sentence or anywhere else in the article does it say that the entire $300 - $400 billion shortfall is due exclusively to "deteriorating sewage systems." Learn to read.

This year's LB corps could consist of Crowell in the middle, with Ellison on one side and a possibly healthier Spikes on the other. Even without adding new talent, it's quite possible we could see an upgrade in the play of our LB corps. I don't feel we got a huge increase in quality of play from the RB position when McGahee was in the game versus when Anthony Thomas was in the game. If we end up drafting a RB on the first day, it's quite possible he'll be an upgrade over McGahee. The loss of Nate Clements deeply displeases me. That said, if Youboty can step in and be average or better for an NFL starter, and if McGee can bounce back from his bad year last year, we might be okay. Instead of having one good and one bad CB, we'd have two average-to-above average CBs.

You've been arguing against a straw man. If my earlier post was long, it was because I needed the space to show how very badly you've misrepresented my views.