MattyT Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 But that's what you've been saying: the difference between a measured value and the mean - the expected value - is error. Error causes regression toward the mean. Ergo, NY taxes aren't extreme, it's just measurement error. Just like how a rubber band stretches. 872223[/snapback] Moth to a flame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 But that's what you've been saying: the difference between a measured value and the mean - the expected value - is error. Error causes regression toward the mean. Ergo, NY taxes aren't extreme, it's just measurement error. Just like how a rubber band stretches. 872223[/snapback] Supppose you flipped a coin 100 times, and you had a group of people try to predict the outcome of each flip. Let's say that the average person was right 50% of the time, but the most accurate person was right 65% of the time. That particular person is asked to predict another 100 coin flips. This person is expected to fully regress toward his group's mean of 50% correct answers, because his above-average performance the first time around was due entirely to luck. Let's say you have a test which does not involve meaningful measurement error--such as someone's height. Whoever obtained the tallest measurement the first time around will be equally far away from the population's average upon being remeasured. Now combine the two scenarios: you have a test that's partially luck-based like the coin flip, but also partly based on something innate, like the measurement of height. Consider a test that's half luck, and half innate. Consider someone who gets a really good score on this test. For the average person who obtained a good score, half of the success is due to luck, and the other half is due to innate ability. On retaking the test, the luck half is expected to go away, and the innate half is expected to remain. The person is still expected to do above-average the second time around, but not by as much as the first test. That's all I've been saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Here we go again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Does anybody here know anything about fighter planes used during the Cold War era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Does anybody here know anything about fighter planes used during the Cold War era? 872289[/snapback] Yeah, actually. What do you want to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Supppose you flipped a coin 100 times, and you had a group of people try to predict the outcome of each flip. Let's say that the average person was right 50% of the time, but the most accurate person was right 65% of the time. That particular person is asked to predict another 100 coin flips. This person is expected to fully regress toward his group's mean of 50% correct answers, because his above-average performance the first time around was due entirely to luck. Let's say you have a test which does not involve meaningful measurement error--such as someone's height. Whoever obtained the tallest measurement the first time around will be equally far away from the population's average upon being remeasured. Now combine the two scenarios: you have a test that's partially luck-based like the coin flip, but also partly based on something innate, like the measurement of height. Consider a test that's half luck, and half innate. Consider someone who gets a really good score on this test. For the average person who obtained a good score, half of the success is due to luck, and the other half is due to innate ability. On retaking the test, the luck half is expected to go away, and the innate half is expected to remain. The person is still expected to do above-average the second time around, but not by as much as the first test. That's all I've been saying. 872246[/snapback] No, that's NOT all you've been saying. And that's the !@#$ing problem, dipshit. Leave the math to the people that can do math. Go play Chutes & Ladders or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 No, that's NOT all you've been saying. And that's the !@#$ing problem, dipshit. Leave the math to the people that can do math. Go play Chutes & Ladders or something... 872307[/snapback] Your arrogance would be easier to forgive if you could back it up. In the regression toward the mean debate, you couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Does anybody here know anything about fighter planes used during the Cold War era? 872289[/snapback] Yeah...the Rhino blows. "HORNETS BY MANDATE, TOMCATS BY CHOICE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Your arrogance would be easier to forgive if you could back it up. In the regression toward the mean debate, you couldn't. 872323[/snapback] Saying that over and over doesn't make it true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Yeah...the Rhino blows. "HORNETS BY MANDATE, TOMCATS BY CHOICE" 872327[/snapback] ...Marines by lack of options... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 ...Marines by lack of options... 872336[/snapback] Very nice. Okay, since we are going down THIS road, who has seen "Dogfights" on the History Channel? Great stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Very nice. Okay, since we are going down THIS road, who has seen "Dogfights" on the History Channel? Great stuff. 872342[/snapback] Caught a brief glimpse of it. Vietnam-era Phantom combat, didn't catch my fancy, looked impressive as hell, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Caught a brief glimpse of it. Vietnam-era Phantom combat, didn't catch my fancy, looked impressive as hell, though. 872358[/snapback] Its all the "famous" dogfights throughout history. Duke Cunningham going up agaisnt Tomb, some famous Crusader stuff, Hellcats against Zeroes, etc. Im waiting for two more: 1. Boyington vs. the Japanese 2. Kleeman vs. the Libyans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Very nice. Okay, since we are going down THIS road, who has seen "Dogfights" on the History Channel? Great stuff. 872342[/snapback] A WNYer and SUNY Fredonia grad produces that show. Pretty cool stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 Very nice. Very "tolerant" of you. Your expression of "acceptance" of all people from "diverse" backgrounds of different faiths is very "enlightened" and "progressive." 871611[/snapback] You are right in your criticism Rkfast. Changing formats on my usual drive-time station with no forewarning left me slightly off-kilter. While my original post was from the heart...more so than the head...I offer apologies to those who were offended with my silly Ferris Bueller line. I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 You are right in your criticism Rkfast. Changing formats on my usual drive-time station with no forewarning left me slightly off-kilter. While my original post was from the heart...more so than the head...I offer apologies to those who were offended with my silly Ferris Bueller line. I'm sorry. 872848[/snapback] How can you tell when you're only "slightly" off-kilter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted December 20, 2006 Author Share Posted December 20, 2006 How can you tell when you're only "slightly" off-kilter? 872886[/snapback] You'll be the first to know Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 You are right in your criticism Rkfast. Changing formats on my usual drive-time station with no forewarning left me slightly off-kilter. While my original post was from the heart...more so than the head...I offer apologies to those who were offended with my silly Ferris Bueller line. I'm sorry. 872848[/snapback] Im not offended, no need to apologize. Im just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. Glad to see you recognized it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Supppose you flipped a coin 100 times, and you had a group of people try to predict the outcome of each flip. Let's say that the average person was right 50% of the time, but the most accurate person was right 65% of the time. That particular person is asked to predict another 100 coin flips. This person is expected to fully regress toward his group's mean of 50% correct answers, because his above-average performance the first time around was due entirely to luck. Let's say you have a test which does not involve meaningful measurement error--such as someone's height. Whoever obtained the tallest measurement the first time around will be equally far away from the population's average upon being remeasured. Now combine the two scenarios: you have a test that's partially luck-based like the coin flip, but also partly based on something innate, like the measurement of height. Consider a test that's half luck, and half innate. Consider someone who gets a really good score on this test. For the average person who obtained a good score, half of the success is due to luck, and the other half is due to innate ability. On retaking the test, the luck half is expected to go away, and the innate half is expected to remain. The person is still expected to do above-average the second time around, but not by as much as the first test. That's all I've been saying. 872246[/snapback] Oh JHC, not again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Oh JHC, not again 873728[/snapback] Apparently someone hasn't read this: Rules and Guidelines The do's and don'ts of the TBD message boards... ... Do NOT post: ... Personal "crusades" (posting the same information/opinion in an excessively repetitive manner. We want posters to share opinions not bludgeon others to death with them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts