Bungee Jumper

No, but they regress to the same IQ the more you test them, because the test is wrong. Therefore, we should breed the smart ones, even though they're no smarter than the dumb ones, just luckier.

Any other sources are also geared to higher than a second-grade level. Actually, they were tied. Truman's extra votes were measurement error.

Was my dice example really THAT unclear? Is there anyone else here, other than Holcomb's Arm, who doesn't understand by this point that regression toward the mean is caused by probability and not error?

So how many parties are fighting in Iraq? And who's supporting each one?

And you're right, if you completely ignore the fact that the probability distribution of a pair of dice is described by THE EQUATION YOU LINKED TO. That makes no sense. It makes NO sense. You just said that one person's "luck" cancels out another person's "unluckiness", and that causes an overall population effect of regression toward the mean...except that as Wraith pointed out to you, the net effect of cancelling out the error is ZERO, which means you should see NO regression toward the mean. That's why researchers use large sample sizes: to reduce the net error. But that only reduces the error! It doesn't cause an otherwise normally distributed sample to magically become single-valued at the mean. Again, you'd see this if you could distinguish between "sample" and "error", and actually had some math skills.

You mean you've read an ACTUAL book? Please, tell me the authors of the textbook that actually supports your warped math beliefs...I have to see this book with my own eyes...

Hyperstats is NOT a textbook, sorry.

No sh--, I'm right. And it's entirely due to random chance: the chances of rolling less than 11 are much greater than rolling 11 or greater. Period. That's the only reason regression toward the mean happens: because extreme values in a normal distribution (or binomial distribution in this case - which is close enough to a normal distribution for this example) are unlikely to reoccurr. Ditto with normally distributed error in an IQ test: it is highly unlikely that extreme amounts of error will reoccur on further testing. But - and here's the point you consistently refuse to comprehend - that will cause regression toward the mean of the error, not the mean of the sample. That's what you keep confusing; you keep treating the probability distribution of the error and of the sample as the same thing, when they're two COMPLETELY different and unrelated things. That you can't even understand that simple point is absolutely mind-boggling. But then, you didn't even know what a binomial distribution is, apparently ("quasi-normal" distribution. ). But then, why would you? That's something you'd pick up if you READ A GODDAMNED TEXTBOOK, YOU FOOL.

I always thought it was too oversized to look realistic, myself. The Vietnam Memorial's easily my favorite. Very human, very moving without being the least bit overbearing. I still wish they'd do something like that for 9/11.

Considering they were gearing up for Sealoewe and Alder Tag at the time, it was never taken seriously in Germany either. Apparently, the only one who's EVER taken it seriously is...Holcomb's Arm.

How the hell would you know? You haven't read any.

Prosecute the man? Hell, he sounds like presidential material. Plus...the article says the guy's mom encouraged him to pretend to be retarded for twenty years? That right there should be enough proof that he is, in fact, mentally deficient.

And you don't see the irony in this? It's not the media's fault that Iraq is the way it is...but your only source of information on how Iraq currently is, is the media. Thus creating an unassailable position of circular logic that ensures no one can have a reasonable discussion with you. And THAT'S why your original post is shallow and silly.

That statement wasn't delivered to the British, either. It was part of a speech he gave, I believe in Munich honoring the Beer Hall Putsch. Hardly constitutes "offerring peace", considering he didn't actually "offer" anything to anyone.

Uhhh...no, they don't. Not that it matters. You've already established for us that books aren't credible sources of information.

Are you just messing with me at this point, or are you really this dumb?

Sources? Again: READ A TEXTBOOK. Verbal example: a pair of dice, roll an 11, the next roll will more likely be less than 11 than not, because there's 33 possible outcomes of being less than 11, but only three of being greater than or equal to 11...and thus, the value regresses toward the mean, because the difference between 11 and 7 (the mean value of two dice) is relatively high. You'll note two things: 1) this is a verbal example of the mathematically CORRECT definition of regression to the mean, and 2) THERE IS NO ERROR INVOLVED, it is strictly a function of the binomial probability distribution. Those two statements above should be enough to end any conversation on the subject. They WOULD be, if you were even slightly less an idiot. Unfortunately, your extreme idiocy won't regress to the mean idiocy of the population, for yet another reason you don't understand: dependent measurements don't regress toward the population mean. If little Jimmy scores a 750 on his SATs, you would not expect him to score a 450 next time around, even though that's a significant deviation to the mean. You WOULD expect him to score near 750, within the bounds of the error of the test. If he takes it ten times, you might establish the error of the test...and you might find that his second score (of 730, let's say) regresses toward HIS mean score of 725, which is just the error inherent in the test regressing toward the mean error of ZERO. That is what you simulated, that's what you've been describing...you're just too stupid to see that it's an entirely different effect than regression toward the population mean.

Stop thinking I don't understand your point. I DO understand your point. It's just utterly, completely, tragically wrong.

Really? Your excessive confidence is what makes your ignorance so damned funny...

An "I don't know" would have sufficed. But then, considering you took a general observation and made it personal, you probably are just a stupid idiot.

What I mean is that very very few people actually understand what goes on in Iraq, they understand what the media reports on Iraq. Ergo, no solution presented by such can possibly address the reality of Iraq, only the reality of the reporting. I didn't mean to imply it was a conscious decision to change the reporting. Merely that people focus on the reporting and confuse it with reality. It ain't.

He found a source that confirms his idiocy. Therefore, the source is "credible". Any source that doesn't confirm his idiocy is "not credible"...like a textbook. It's typical. Not just of him, either. Look at how the zealous liberals/conservatives here hold so dearly to their liberal/conservative news sources. Don't allow yourself to ever consider a dissenting opinion, and you'll always be right.

What's more, he'd tell us he's right and everyone else is wrong because you can't have a hat without soccer, since they're actually the same thing.

The second part of that is because he's trying to use stats as it pertains to social research. The first part: because he's a !@#$ing idiot. He still hasn't defined "variance"...which is kind of an important point when you're talking about regression.

More likely because it was a shallow and silly post. When are people going to realize that most of their "solutions" to the Iraq issue aren't directed at solving the problems in Iraq, they're directed at changing the media coverage of Iraq? Iraq would be far better off if Americans stopped dishonestly trying to pretend they knew what was going on over there and instead honestly said "I really don't know what's happening in Iraq" once in a while... But then...the vast majority of people would rather have ten heartfelt opinions than be confronted by a single fact, particularly if that fact is "I don't know".