Orton's Arm

People in general aren't good at seeing their own flaws, so I don't know the extent to which I'm guilty of being unreasonably stubborn. That said, this is the first time anyone's said to me that the phenomenon I've been describing exists, but that I've been mislabeling it. Mostly the message I've been hearing from Bungee Jumper and Ramius is that the phenomenon I've been describing doesn't exist, that I'm an idiot for saying it does exist, and that I'm an idiot in general. If I've thrown insults at those two, it's because they've first insulted me. In this case, their insults were directed at me for saying things which are objectively correct and not seriously disputed.

Let me ask you this question: do you feel this article has mislabeled regression toward the mean? I'm not trying to argue with you, but it really seems to me the person who put that website together knows his stuff.

In addition to that, Ramius and Bungee Jumper wouldn't have anything to say!

The New York Times called William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich "One of the most important works of history of our time." Here's a quote: Edit: when I wrote that Hitler wanted the same relationship to Europe as the U.S. had to North America, I meant that Hitler wanted Germany to be as powerful with respect to Europe as the U.S. was to North America. Hitler felt this extra power would ensure Germany never again had to endure a Versailles Treaty.

If I come across a peer-reviewed journal that spells out regression toward the mean in terms you can understand, I'll let you know. Most peer-reviewed journals assume their readers already know what regression toward the mean is. Those who don't know what it is--and yes, this means you--are supposed to go to websites that teach people about stats. I've provided nice links to such places. Too bad you either ignored them or didn't understand them.

The more you talk, the dumber you seem. And that's saying something! For you to pretend Wraith was supporting your own (and Bungee Jumper's) ignorant views is utterly laughable. For you to pretend thousands of scientists and mathematicians agree with you is ignorant bluster. You've shown not the slightest scrap of evidence that anyone outside these boards agrees with the garbage you've been spewing. I, on the other hand, have provided numerous links, to unrelated, credible sources, which support what I've been saying. If a given test involves an element of measurement error, those with extreme scores on the test will tend to regress toward the population mean upon being retested. The poorer the test is in measuring the underlying phenomenon, the greater the error range will be, and the more those with extreme scores will tend to regress toward the population mean upon being retested.

Is this your way of telling us you're Slavic? BTW, whether you're Slavic or not, I guarantee you there are plenty of Slavs a lot smarter than you.

They'd be forced to migrate east.

Thanks for providing a link to a source which either a) supports what I've been saying, or b) doesn't address the topic at all. Now try finding a link to someone who supports your side.

Wraith--who works with statistics for a living--tried to explain regression toward the mean to Bungee Jumper and Ramius. Wraith used a metaphor of a rubber band. If there's measurement error in your I.Q. test, it causes people's I.Q.s to appear to be more spread out than they really are. This is like a rubber band being stretched. Then if you go back and remeasure those who did the best or the worst on the I.Q. test, their scores will generally be a little closer to the population's mean. This is like the rubber band snapping back into place. Consider, for example, a population where the smartest people have a real I.Q. of 190. Some of these people will get lucky when they take the I.Q. test, and score a 200. Measurement error caused the population to appear to be more spread out than it really is. If you ask those who scored a 200 on the test to retake it, their average score the second time around will be 190 or so. The rubber band snaps back into place. The fact that I'm being ridiculed for Wraith's rubber band metaphor demonstrates that Bungee Jumper and Ramius have utterly abandoned even the pretense of using logic, and are acting like badly behaved children.

Thanks for that example of bluster, without backing it up in any way whatsoever with actual links to the sources you're describing.

Never said it was.

Germans.

Are you really this ignorant about stats? Your two dice example isn't a binomial distribution by any stretch of the imagination. For any given data point on a binomial distribution, there are only two mutually exclusive outcomes--think flipping a coin. Just because you have two dice doesn't make the resulting distribution binomial. It makes it quasi-normal, because those two dice will produce a data curve somewhat similar to a normal distribution. Despite your claims, I'm not confused in the slightest between regression toward the mean of the sample and regression toward the mean error value of zero. The latter phenomenon causes the former. Someone who gets a very high score on a test that's based at least in part on luck is (on average) luckier than normal. Someone who gets a low score on a partially luck-based test will, on average, be less lucky than normal. Upon retaking the relevant test, these people's scores will tend to regress to an error value of zero. This cancels out the good or bad luck they generally experienced the first time around, and causes them to regress somewhat toward the population mean.

Once again, you're wrong.

Had you followed your own advice, a very unfruitful debate could have been avoided. There's an element of random chance involved in the example you've provided above. As you point out, this random chance produces a quasi-normal distribution with a mean value of 7. You are right in saying that a die roll of 11 is expected to regress toward the mean value of the distribution upon being rerolled. Further, you are right to say that someone who gets lucky or unlucky on an I.Q. test is expected to have neutral luck the second time around--and hence to regress toward his or her true I.Q. However, very high scores on I.Q. tests signal people who are disproportionately lucky on the test. When such people retake the test, some will obtain higher scores, but most will obtain somewhat lower scores. In the aggregate, they mildly regress toward the population mean; because the net positive luck the group experienced the first time around goes away upon being retested. (The reason the group had net positive luck the first time around was because they were selected based on their high scores; which are in part based on good luck.) The average person who gets a 750 on the math section of the SAT got a little lucky in taking it. If such a person retakes it, the expected outcome is 725.

More than enough to create the additional farmland and living space for Germans Hitler envisioned.

I've been wondering the same thing about you for quite some time.

There's a bunch of malarkey if I've ever heard it. You've offered zero quotes from any stats books whatsoever to support your moronic position on regression toward the mean, yet you prance about as if every stats book ever written supports your braindead views. Guess what? Stats book authors are a lot smarter than you.

If you understood my point, you'd understand a) it's 100% correct, and b) you've been making a fool out of yourself for countless pages.

Most good WWII history books will tell you that Hitler offered Britain peace after France fell. If you look at the number of divisions the German army had in Europe versus what the British had to defend the Middle Eastern and African portions of their empire, you'll see it would have been relatively easy for Hitler to have taken large portions of the British Empire. But in Mein Kampf Hitler wrote that he had no interest in a tropical empire, because areas near the equator were unsuitable living conditions for white people. He also wrote that he had no interest in conquering the United States. He wanted Germany to have the same relation to Europe that the U.S. had to North America. For this purpose, and for his lebensraum goal, the conquest of the Soviet Union would have been more than enough.

Unfortunately, your ignorance isn't funny at all.

Suppose someone scores a 750 on the math section of the SAT. That person, upon retaking the test, will generally score a 725; because of regression toward the mean. Suppose that two people each score a 750 on the math section of the SAT. Instead of retaking the test and getting 725s, they decide to have children. Suppose math ability is 100% determined by genetics. What math scores should we expect from the couple's children? 725s. It's not that the children's math ability is any closer to the mean than their parents', it's that the parents got a little lucky when they took the test. Your inability to grasp this point directly led to the hijacking of a number of threads, and a completely unreasonable number of pages of discussion.

You've provided zero credible sources to support your view. None. You've provided no verbal logic to support your view either, beyond your raw ability to hurl baseless accusations at people. For example, you make the unsupported claim that I don't understand variance. If you wanted to turn this into something that actually supports your stupid position on regression toward the mean, you'd a) actually define variance yourself, b) demonstrate how this definition supports or undermines the phenomenon described in the Hyperstat article. (It doesn't undermine Hyperstat's description, but don't let that stop you from pretending otherwise.) In contrast to your zero-evidence approach, I've provided a number of links which explain regression toward the mean in the same way I explained it. I've created a model which shows the phenomenon at work. And if this wasn't enough, Wraith (who does statistics for a living) has supported what I've said about regression toward the mean. I've done quite a bit to give credibility and support to what I've been saying about regression toward the mean. You've done precisely nothing to give any support to your mistaken and misguided views. Please don't complain when I don't take your views about regression toward the mean seriously. The problem's not me, it's you.

Your ignorance wouldn't be so annoying if it wasn't for your excessive confidence.