Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Then don't take my word for it. READ A DAMN TEXTBOOK. I've found plenty of evidence with which to support my position--various links, thought experiments, my Monte Carlo simulation, even the opinion of someone who does stats for a living (Wraith). The only evidence I've seen you show to support your position is your ability to throw insults at people. In looking for those extra links on regression toward the mean, I didn't see a single one which supported your view, or hinted at such support. Not one. I've never seen anyone support your view, outside of these forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I've found plenty of evidence with which to support my position--various links, thought experiments, my Monte Carlo simulation, even the opinion of someone who does stats for a living (Wraith). The only evidence I've seen you show to support your position is your ability to throw insults at people. In looking for those extra links on regression toward the mean, I didn't see a single one which supported your view, or hinted at such support. Not one. I've never seen anyone support your view, outside of these forums. 859065[/snapback] You would if you READ A TEXTBOOK. If Wraith supports your opinion...he's wrong. But he doesn't support your opinion; I've read his posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 If Wraith supports your opinion...he's wrong. But he doesn't support your opinion; I've read his posts. 859069[/snapback] Unfortunately, you haven't understood them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Unfortunately, you haven't understood them. 859071[/snapback] I understood the one where he said "measurement error doesn't cause regression toward the mean". Puts me one up on you, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 December 6th, 2006: Its now Day 55. Holcomb's arm is still wrong, and still has no comprehension of regression toward the mean, error, heritability, inheritibility, or the genetic basis for intelligence, or the NFL QB position. He still continually beats his head against the wall. One cannot discuss this with him, as he cannot stop thinking he is right and 99.999% of the rest of the world is wrong. I liken this back to his irrational comments and "analysis" on JP Losman versus Kelly Holcomb. Looking at one side of an issue, ignoring facts, and making overall generally irrational and unsubstantiated claims. When pointed out that he is wrong, he continually shouts "I'm RIGHT, I'M RIGHT, I'M RIGHT" in hopes that somehow, someway, this will make his statements less wrong. So far his efforts have been futile and unsuccessful. We never thought it would go on this long. We figured, that at some point, he would crack and realize he was wrong and run and hide. This almost happend on November 16th, but he keeps coming back for more. The Doctor will be pleasantly surprised with the hard headedness of the subject. Previous research shows that most normal subjects crack around Day 41-43. Here we are at 55 and counting. The Doctor will be able to get quite the research article out fo this subject. If the utter stupidity of the subject continues into the new year, we could be looking at a potential nobel prize. ~R 12/6/2006 858834[/snapback] That is by far the best single post i have read on this board . I can not believe that i have read all 30 pages of this and Holcomb's noodle Arm is still fighting many TSW'ers and mathematicians about regression towards the mean . I think his explanation about the IQ thing was just beyond odd too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 That is by far the best single post i have read on this board . I can not believe that i have read all 30 pages of this and Holcomb's noodle Arm is still fighting many TSW'ers and mathematicians about regression towards the mean . I think his explanation about the IQ thing was just beyond odd too. 859150[/snapback] Regression toward the mean is a tricky concept. But after reading through all 30 pages of this thread, you ought to be able to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Regression toward the mean is a tricky concept. But after reading through all 30 pages of this thread, you ought to be able to understand it. 859161[/snapback] no maybe after three statistics courses, and a general knowledge in mathematics, has allowed me to gain a good idea about regression towards the mean. You just keep butchering brilliant math with your homer simpson-esque vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Regression toward the mean is a tricky concept. But after reading through all 30 pages of this thread, you ought to be able to understand it. 859161[/snapback] Your theories have more gaps than the average Canadian's dental impressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Your theories have more gaps than the average Canadian's dental impressions. 859269[/snapback] wow that is great lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Your theories have more gaps than the average Canadian's dental impressions. 859269[/snapback] I don't have any "theories" about regression toward the mean. I'm simply reiterating statistical facts as discovered by others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I don't have any "theories" about regression toward the mean. I'm simply reiterating statistical facts as discovered by others. 859510[/snapback] you repeat a second grade website that you dont even understand. try reading a technical journal. oh wait, you wouldnt understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 This thread is STILL going Reading HA's assclown arguments and the subsequent posts remind me of the sage words of Obi-Wan Kenobe (the real Obi-Wan Alec Guiness)... Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? please just let this thread die. i don't care who has the last word, it doesn't matter just give it up. you're eating up SDS's bandwidth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 This thread is STILL going Reading HA's assclown arguments and the subsequent posts remind me of the sage words of Obi-Wan Kenobe (the real Obi-Wan Alec Guiness)... Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? please just let this thread die. i don't care who has the last word, it doesn't matter just give it up. you're eating up SDS's bandwidth 860965[/snapback] The reason I'm still arguing is because people like you a) don't understand what I've been trying to say, and b) think they do understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 The reason I'm still arguing is because people like you a) don't understand what I've been trying to say, and b) think they do understand it. 861033[/snapback] I quote Albert Einstein (or was it Norman?) Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I quote Albert Einstein (or was it Norman?)Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 861066[/snapback] What's saying the same thing over and over again, but pretending you're saying something different each time, and expecting the same result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 The reason I'm still arguing is because people like you a) don't understand what I've been trying to say, and b) think they do understand it. 861033[/snapback] You can't blame any one person or administration for it. However, some of the dealings we had back then with Iraq and Iran and the Saudis certainly have fueled today's situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 What's saying the same thing over and over again, but pretending you're saying something different each time, and expecting the same result? 861091[/snapback] I've gotta try the holcombs arm statistics method when doing research. Because according to him, if any of my data is bad, i just need to keep measuring it. It will eventually regress to the population mean, and now i'll have good data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 What's saying the same thing over and over again, but pretending you're saying something different each time, and expecting the same result? 861091[/snapback] Regressing towards the mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Regressing towards the mean 861136[/snapback] Doesn't this mean that HA's IQ is progressing towards the mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts