Ramius Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Yup, that's pretty much it. Holcomb's Arm was mislead a bit by that article. The article describes a scenario where exceptional scores move towards the popluation mean when retested, and calls it regression towards the mean. HA simulates that scenario, see's that the scenario only works because of measurement error, and concludes that measurement error causes regression towards the population mean. I can see how it could happen. 859980[/snapback] Well, that about does it. Wraith, your plastic parts explanation was pretty much dead on and is the same type of experiment i was just going to describe. (except i was going to use my cells' lactate production instead of little plastic parts ) I've lost count, but the final score is something like Statistics 3,482, Holcombs Arm 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Yup, that's pretty much it. Holcomb's Arm was mislead a bit by that article. The article describes a scenario where exceptional scores move towards the popluation mean when retested, and calls it regression towards the mean. HA simulates that scenario, see's that the scenario only works because of measurement error, and concludes that measurement error causes regression towards the population mean. I can see how it could happen. 859980[/snapback] If you dig through the "Err America Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy" thread, you'll see that I've said that both measurement error and a non-uniform distribution of I.Q.s are necessary to create the phenomenon I've been describing. Here's a quote from page 12 of that thread: measurement error creates a distorted view of things. So the people who got 140s on the I.Q. test really have an average I.Q. that's somewhat lower. This is because there are more people with I.Q.s of 130 or 135 (available for getting lucky) than there are people with I.Q.s of 150 or 145 available for getting unlucky. So if you have a group of people who all got a 140 on an I.Q. test, the true average I.Q. of that group will be less than 140. If you give that group a second I.Q. test, its true average will make itself clear. Bungee Jumper responded with this: What you have going on here is what was best expressed by Wolfgang Pauli: "That's not right, that's not even wrong!" What he meant was, when it comes to science, it's possible to be right, it's possible to be wrong, or it's possible to be such an ineffable idiot that you haven't even achieved anything resembling science. Ramius responded with this: Lets see. You type some sh-- thats completely wrong, with not even a sniff of being right. It gets pointed out as being completely wrong. I point out along with others as well as mainstream science and math that your dumbass statement is wrong. All along, I've been saying that people who get very high scores on I.Q. tests tend to do a little well upon being retested. If you look at the first four posts on page 16 of the Err thread, you'll see Bungee Jumper ridicule this view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 If you dig through the "Err America Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy" thread, you'll see that I've said that both measurement error and a non-uniform distribution of I.Q.s are necessary to create the phenomenon I've been describing. Here's a quote from page 12 of that thread: Ramius responded with this: Lets see. You type some sh-- thats completely wrong, with not even a sniff of being right. It gets pointed out as being completely wrong. I point out along with others as well as mainstream science and math that your dumbass statement is wrong. All along, I've been saying that people who get very high scores on I.Q. tests tend to do a little well upon being retested. If you look at the first four posts on page 16 of the Err thread, you'll see Bungee Jumper ridicule this view. 860026[/snapback] So NOW you're point is "regression toward the mean happens", and not "regression toward the mean happens because of measurement error, just like when you don't roll a 3.5 with a single die..." like it has been for the past month. Do you honestly think you can blather on for fifty or so pages, and then suddenly wake up one day and claim you were saying something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 All along, I've been saying that people who get very high scores on I.Q. tests tend to do a little well upon being retested. If you look at the first four posts on page 16 of the Err thread, you'll see Bungee Jumper ridicule this view. 860026[/snapback] So NOW you're point is "regression toward the mean happens", and not "regression toward the mean happens because of measurement error, just like when you don't roll a 3.5 with a single die..." like it has been for the past month. Do you honestly think you can blather on for fifty or so pages, and then suddenly wake up one day and claim you were saying something else? 860859[/snapback] Wow, deja vu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 So NOW you're point is "regression toward the mean happens", and not "regression toward the mean happens because of measurement error, just like when you don't roll a 3.5 with a single die..." like it has been for the past month. Do you honestly think you can blather on for fifty or so pages, and then suddenly wake up one day and claim you were saying something else? 860859[/snapback] Is the thingy there because you stole that exact pile of, um, of text from Bungee Jumper? The next time you steal something, make sure it's worth stealing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Is the thingy there because you stole that exact pile of, um, of text from Bungee Jumper? The next time you steal something, make sure it's worth stealing! 860930[/snapback] With the way you keep changing your stance on what you are wrongly arguing, i'm just going to start calling you john kerry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 With the way you keep changing your stance on what you are wrongly arguing, i'm just going to start calling you john kerry. 860938[/snapback] I've been saying the exact same thing all along. Maybe some of it's finally starting to penetrate those 16 inches of bone that separate your "brain" from the outside world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I've been saying the exact same thing all along. Maybe some of it's finally starting to penetrate those 16 inches of bone that separate your "brain" from the outside world. 861029[/snapback] How in the hell do you expect anyone to believe that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 I've been saying the exact same thing all along. Maybe some of it's finally starting to penetrate those 16 inches of bone that separate your "brain" from the outside world. 861029[/snapback] You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 861038[/snapback] You're wrong, as I've shown here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're wrong, as I've shown here 861040[/snapback] Actually, that just reinforces my point. Thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Actually, that just reinforces my point. Thanks for playing. 861043[/snapback] You're wrong, but let's continue this over on the "regression toward the mean" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're wrong, as I've shown here 861040[/snapback] Yeah, that's what you've been saying all along. Measurement error causes regression toward the mean. And it's still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're wrong, as I've shown here 861040[/snapback] You're not even reading the same book as everyone else. You're still confusing variance with error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're not even reading the same book as everyone else. You're still confusing variance with error. 861092[/snapback] Little early to be drinking, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 Little early to be drinking, isn't it? 861093[/snapback] But But but....“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 But But but....“We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Mr. Romney wrote in a detailed plea for the support of the club, a gay Republican organization. 861097[/snapback] It's definitely too early to be drinking methanol... Should I be expecting to receive a call for boom from you soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 It's definitely too early to be drinking methanol... Should I be expecting to receive a call for boom from you soon? 861102[/snapback] 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...
Ramius Posted December 9, 2006 Share Posted December 9, 2006 You're wrong, but let's continue this over on the "regression toward the mean" thread. 861045[/snapback] Nope. your dumbass arguement is STILL incorrect, and you STILL dont know what the hell you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts