Orton's Arm

You're right: I didn't bother looking there. Whether I pay $40 or $115 doesn't matter: it's still not worth spending my own money just because Bungee Jumper refuses to admit he's dead wrong about regression toward the mean.

The only way I'd be a fool is if I paid $115 to confirm what I already know about regression toward the mean.

I'm tired of the regression toward the mean discussion, so here are a number of links with which to put this issue to bed. http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/regrmean.htm "Assume that the sample for your study was selected exclusively from the low pretest scorers. . . . the sample's mean appears to regress toward the mean of the population from pretest to posttest." http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/stat_sim/reg...mean/index.html Simulation of regression toward the mean. http://www.drjimtaylor.com/homtemplate/sophomoreslump.html "An alternative explanation that has been offered for the phenomenon of the sophomore slump is that the decline in performance is a function of a regression toward the mean (Gilovich, 1984; Nisbett, Krantz, Jepson, & Kunda, 1983), that is, a statistical tendency of extreme scores to move toward the group mean (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). From this perspective, outstanding rookie performances are likely to regress toward their actual level of ability (Gilovich, 1984)." http://www.ipmaac.org/acn/aug96/stat.html "A group of children took a reading test. Those who scored more than one standard deviation below the mean were put into a special reading program. Students in the reading program took the reading test again at the end of the semester and, on the average, the scores were higher. A matched t-test showed a significant difference between the means. The reading teacher, George Bernard Phonics, claimed that this showed that the program did some good. Is that true? You know, I have to say: 'No, the procedure described does not show the program did any good whatsoever.' . . . George 'learned' about regression toward the mean in his first statistics course, but forgot about it right after the final exam." These four links are in addition to the two I've already supplied. I invite anyone who'd like to dispute this issue to provide even a single link from a credible source to support his or her view.

I refuse to pay $115 for a textbook because you're too stupid to understand regression toward the mean.

In other words, you're entitled to make unsupported, false statements. If someone calls you on it, you'll just say the statement is too obvious to need proof. Hey, maybe I should enter your world. From now on, everything I say is too obvious to need any proof either. There's really no point in me trying to prove anything to you, as you'll just ignore the proof anyway.

To which positions are you referring? I'll often voice a middle of the road comment, and that will usually get agreement from some, disagreement from others. My suggestion for eugenics is considered non-mainstream, at least by the intellectually shallow standards of early 21st century America. The fact that no crowd of people arose to support my view doesn't make it stupid (as you seem to be implying), it just means it's unpopular with this particular crowd. Go to the Mensa forums, and you'll see a fair number of people who at very least believe smart people should be having more kids. Wraith works with statistics for a living, and I'm grateful to him for coming to my assistance in the regression to the mean discussion. Unfortunately, his words were ignored, as were my words, and the sources to which I linked. Some people are content to be ignorant. You point out I misremembered a formula from an undergrad class. That's certainly true, but I later provided a link to the correct formula; which otherwise wouldn't have entered the discussion. The correct version of the formula did a better job of proving my point than the misremembered version, so it wasn't like I was "misremembering facts or data to prove [my point]," as you implied. In the regression toward the mean discussion, Bungee Jumper is wrong. Unlike Wraith, most posters either don't have the knowledge and intelligence to see this error, or else lack the self-confidence to point it out.

Yet another post without a link. What a surprise.

The link you provided is a link to your own ignorant discussion about regression toward the mean. As for the rest of your post, you've contributed nothing intelligent to these boards ever, at least not that I've seen. Either you have no critical thinking skills, or you have such skills but are choosing not to use them here. Either way, I don't see why I should spend my time on you.

Suppose the Supreme Court struck down a number of George W. Bush's laws. Now suppose he responded by trying to increase the number of justices on the court to 16. How would you feel about that? That would be many times worse than the Patriot Act, no? Well FDR tried the same thing back in the '30s.

You think so? Then back up his statement. Name the specific posters who have "taken me to school" and give specific examples. Name the publications which have "taken me to school" and show me which specific content in those publications I was taken to school by. Be sure to give specific quotes from those publications, as well as from me. Finally, name the textbooks which have taken me to school, including page numbers and appropriate quotes, and show how these disproved specific posts. Good luck.

Your post consisted of excuses disguised as attacks. I've given a link to a very credible source, which supports what I've been saying about regression toward the mean. Obviously you're unable to do the same with your view.

Your statement is a lie. You are accusing me of childish insults? That's like Hitler accusing someone of excessive hate toward the Jews.

Your statement about stats books is incorrect--no reputable stats book would support your arguments about regression toward the mean. You may think you remember what those books have to say on the subject, but you're wrong. The nice thing about links is that you can't just make up whatever you feel like, or what you think you remember, and post it as an absolute fact. Others can see if the link says what you claim it says. The reason you can't provide a credible link to support your views is because no credible source is going to support you. I, however, was able to support my view with the Hyperstat link.

Why would you bring textbooks into this discussion, when you haven't been able to find any which support your own misguided view of regression toward the mean? Give me a link from a credible source which supports your views, and then try arguing with me. Because right now, you're full of enough hot air to significantly contribute to global warming.

I'll grant you your first "you know this because . . . ?" It's conceivable there's some field of research in which good work doesn't require good thinking. Maybe Ramius has manged to stumble across such a field. As for your second question, I've seen Ramius in action long enough to get an idea of his capabilities and limitations. Unless he's a far different man in the real world than he is on these discussion boards, he isn't fit for serious intellectual work.

I wrote that if Ramius was in charge of the thinking (which he isn't) the paper would be worthless. I'm basing this on the assumption that good research requires good thinking, and the observation that Ramius is generally incapable of rigorous thought.

I hope for the sake of the paper that the three of you (or at least you) provided the work, while your boss did all the real thinking. Because if you were in charge of the thinking, the paper would be worthless.

Such confidence from someone who's so utterly wrong. Did you even read a single word of either of the articles to which I linked? How many articles were you able to find to support your deeply mistaken position? The last time I checked, you'd found a grand total of zero. Nor were you able to refute any of the logic I posed. That's because the logic is irrefutable: a score of 140 on an I.Q. test is more likely to signal a lucky 130 than an unlucky 150, because there are more 130s than 150s. Your (and Ramius's) inability to grasp such a simple concept, repeatedly explained, has significantly decreased your credibility in my eyes. Ramius never had any credibility to begin with, so I'm not as worried about him.

One man's list of the worst presidents ever: 1. FDR - Most dictator-like president in U.S. history. Moved toward a centrally-planned economy. Insistence on "unconditional surrender" in WWII discouraged the German generals plotting against Hitler, it prolonged the war for years, and ultimately resulted in Soviet control of most of Europe. 2. LBJ - Great Society program an utter disaster. Vietnam War. Open border immigration policy. 3. Woodrow Wilson - Got the U.S. involved in WWI based on false Allied propaganda about German atrocities. WWI failed to achieve the stated goal of making the world safe for democracy. 4. Truman - Snubbed the British after Churchill gave his "Iron Curtain" speech. Republicans had to pressure him to enact the Marshall Plan. Destroyed two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons. Fired General MacArthur for wanting to win the Korean War. 5. George W. Bush - has asked American soldiers to die to "fight terror" while refusing to fight terror by securing America's borders. Sold out to corporations, and reduced civil liberties. Poor environmental record. Iraq war. 6. Grant - Deeply corrupt administration 7. Clinton - More corruption and lack of moral leadership. Weak environmental record. Bungled military efforts. Failed North Korean policy.

I'm absolutely no fan of Hillary at all. That said, we've become far too PC in this country, and I'm tired of it. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash Hillary. This isn't one of them.

Wow! You found a group of people you can leach off of. Color me impressed.

If I could convert your post's irony into cash, I'd be Bill Gates.

If you're implying Ramius actually has his very own research publications, I'm becoming a Luddite.

This from someone who doesn't understand regression toward the mean, despite my repeated efforts to explain it to him.

If you're such a fountain of knowledge, why didn't you introduce the correct version of the formula into the discussion? I'lll tell you why not: you didn't know about it.