/dev/null Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 And just when you thought this fire was beginning to wane... 832916[/snapback] If i wanted to suffer thru 25 pages of nothing i'd go to work and sit thru a meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Conversely, you could take the error completely out of your simulation. Test your population, then test them again. "On average", people who score very well/poorly will score less well/poorly even in the absence of error, because chance (i.e. the probability distribution of a normal distribution) dictates it. That's not the way I set up my simulation. Each given member's true I.Q. stayed constant for the two tests. Therefore, someone who scored a 155 on the first error-free I.Q. test would score a 155 on the second, the third, and the fiftieth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 This thread reminds me of something I'd forgotten: Tom Donahue is Satan and drinks baby's blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 This thread reminds me of something I'd forgotten: Tom Donahue is Satan and drinks baby's blood. 834096[/snapback] Have you ever tried Noodles and pickle Juice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 That's not the way I set up my simulation.834048[/snapback] But as I keep telling you, YOUR SIMULATION IS A MEANINGLESS PIECE OF sh--! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 But as I keep telling you, YOUR SIMULATION IS A MEANINGLESS PIECE OF sh--! 834618[/snapback] You weren't right the first ten times you said that. What makes you think you're right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 You weren't right the first ten times you said that. What makes you think you're right now? 834645[/snapback] I am right. I can mathematically prove I'm right. I've explained why I'm right. Other people have explained why I'm right. You're just too friggin' stupid to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I am right. I can mathematically prove I'm right. I've explained why I'm right. Other people have explained why I'm right. You're just too friggin' stupid to understand. 834668[/snapback] You don't understand the phenomenon my simulation is intended to exhibit. You don't understand how my simulation was set up. You didn't understand the Wikipedia article about regression toward the mean, nor the HyperStat article to which I linked. You didn't understand that my simulation is set up in the same way, and intended to prove the same point, as the simulation to which HyperStat linked. Nearly every word you've written about the relationship between measurement error and regression toward the mean has been based on a faulty and incorrect understanding of the heart of the issue. You still don't understand it, despite my Herculean efforts to explain it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 You don't understand the phenomenon my simulation is intended to exhibit. You don't understand how my simulation was set up. You didn't understand the Wikipedia article about regression toward the mean, nor the HyperStat article to which I linked. You didn't understand that my simulation is set up in the same way, and intended to prove the same point, as the simulation to which HyperStat linked. Nearly every word you've written about the relationship between measurement error and regression toward the mean has been based on a faulty and incorrect understanding of the heart of the issue. You still don't understand it, despite my Herculean efforts to explain it to you. 834686[/snapback] Yes, I do. You're just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 I haven't read this thread all weekend. So, what's new? Is HA still giving it to Tommy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Have you ever tried Noodles and pickle Juice? 834346[/snapback] You complain and complain when people harp on you and 14 year old girls, but you keep harping on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 You complain and complain when people harp on you and 14 year old girls, but you keep harping on this. 835801[/snapback] This is the first time i mention it. I apologize IEC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 You don't understand the phenomenon my simulation is intended to exhibit. You don't understand how my simulation was set up. You didn't understand the Wikipedia article about regression toward the mean, nor the HyperStat article to which I linked. You didn't understand that my simulation is set up in the same way, and intended to prove the same point, as the simulation to which HyperStat linked. Nearly every word you've written about the relationship between measurement error and regression toward the mean has been based on a faulty and incorrect understanding of the heart of the issue. You still don't understand it, despite my Herculean efforts to explain it to you. 834686[/snapback] The Sabres have been tied after regulation a lot this year. Does this mean they are better at regressing toward the mean than most other teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 The Sabres have been tied after regulation a lot this year. Does this mean they are better at regressing toward the mean than most other teams? 836461[/snapback] That's why they're so good. They're less wrong than most teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 The Sabres have been tied after regulation a lot this year. Does this mean they are better at regressing toward the mean than most other teams? 836461[/snapback] Crayonz needs more posts like these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 That's why they're so good. They're less wrong than most teams. 836486[/snapback] Maybe that would look good on a shirt. "We're less wrong than most teams. (Except when we try to pick a new friggin' logo.)" It would definitely look better than the new logo. I'm not sure what crayons should be used to color the shirt though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 Maybe that would look good on a shirt. "We're less wrong than most teams. (Except when we try to pick a new friggin' logo.)" It would definitely look better than the new logo. I'm not sure what crayons should be used to color the shirt though. 837358[/snapback] Should we call JP-era back to help with the coloring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Should we call JP-era back to help with the coloring? 837366[/snapback] He still has not recovered from the fact the Bills did not sign a stud FA at 12:02am the first day of FA. Give him time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I see we have a new smilie designed for holcombs arm in this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 I see we have a new smilie designed for holcombs arm in this thread... 850608[/snapback] Too bad he hasn't been seen since he was JACKED! UP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts