X. Benedict Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 "McNugget" C'mon. McNugget is for the casual reader and isn't peer reviewed like Grimace's Educational Review and Statistical Supplement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 C'mon. McNugget is for the casual reader and isn't peer reviewed like Grimace's Educational Review and Statistical Supplement. I think you're a bit confused, X. "McNugget" and "Big Mac" are 2 of the most well-known peer-reviewed journals in the field of fast-foodology. The magazine that you are thinking of is "Deep Fryer American" You are right about grimace's tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 You've been owned. You've been humiliated. You've been shown to be a dimwit. Deal with those facts. steps to demonstrating you are a complete moron: 1. Make an outrageous claim 2. Use wikipedia as your only crutch 3. when consistently proven wrong, call the other party names, and claim you've "won" the arguement I'd say you've got this method down pat. Was this taught in your 2nd or 3rd year at Hamburger U? Computers 101: Hamburglars guide to winning an online arguement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 the field of fast-foodology. When you told us about your PhD work, I was wondering what on earth field could be so unchallenging that an idiot like you could succeed in it. Thanks for clearing up that mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 When you told us about your PhD work, I was wondering what on earth field could be so unchallenging that an idiot like you could succeed in it. Thanks for clearing up that mystery. looks like i forgot step 4: laugh at one's own lame attempt at humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 steps to demonstrating you are a complete moron: 1. Make an outrageous claim 2. Use wikipedia as your only crutch 3. when consistently proven wrong, call the other party names, and claim you've "won" the arguement I'd say you've got this method down pat. Was this taught in your 2nd or 3rd year at Hamburger U? Computers 101: Hamburglars guide to winning an online arguement? I did not make "claims" in the regression toward the mean debate. I pointed out statistical truths. You didn't understand those truths, so you ridiculed them. While I used Wikipedia and Hyperstats as my sources early on, I later found articles from Harvard, Stanford, etc., which also described the statistical truths I'd been trying so hard to communicate to you. You didn't understand those articles, because you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Equivalence issues? At least there's an element of novelty in your otherwise dim-witted accusations. The articles I quoted said exactly what I'd been trying to pound into your skull for the previous 50 pages. The fact that you claim to see a difference between the two raises three possibilities: 1) you didn't understand the articles, 2) you didn't understand my posts, 3) you're lying. Yes, equivalence issues. Because it is not equivalent to regression toward the mean. This sh-- isn't as hard as you're making it. Really. It's quite simple, when you bother to pull your head out of your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 True story... I remember being in the 5th or 6th grade (late 1970's) and bringing up a theory of how the dinosaurs went extinct because of a major meteor strike... Kinda funny because the "main thinking" (and what the heck does a 5th/6th grade teacher know anyway?) at the time was bullsh*t! ...I still remember the teacher saying "climate change"... Meteor hits causing it are pure sci-fi! Now you know why I have problems with words like inflammable! How the phuck to you trust anybody?... Even the so called "experts"... Signed, Jaded in Illinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Yes, equivalence issues. Because it is not equivalent to regression toward the mean. This sh-- isn't as hard as you're making it. Really. It's quite simple, when you bother to pull your head out of your ass. Duke labeled the test/retest phenomenon "regression toward the mean." If you're trying to say my terminology is incorrect, you've just fallen flat on your face. Again. What we have here are two similar but distinct phenomena which can both be correctly labeled "regression toward the mean." Phenomenon A is the test/retest effect, as described by the Hyperstats article, and the Stanford and Duke websites. Phenomenon B is what Sir Francis Galton described as "regression toward mediocrity" and stems from the fact that there's a less-than-one correlation coefficient for parents passing on any given trait to their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts