VisorCentral.com - One Year On

Pages (24): « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- One Year On (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=26965)

Posted by Toby on 10-16-2002 08:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I'm not saying it tells me everything, but it does tell me something. For instance if I said I have two friends, John and Betty. Which one is taller? Of course you don't know, but knowing their names you have a clue. That is all I'm pointing out here. You are interpretting my argument as one of absolutes while I am presenting it as a probabilistic tool, just like all non-theoretical arguments.

No, AAMOF, we don't have a clue, any more than you have a clue as to whether or not I'm taller than my wife without having met either of us.

Posted by John Nowak on 10-16-2002 09:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
You surely agree with me that knowing someone is Jewish tells me something about their opinions regarding the middle east, right?

I don't know about Jonathan, but I certainly don't agree. You would be pre-judging your hypothetical Jewish person, or in other words, you would be prejudiced. I consider prejudice to be a bad thing, don't you?

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-16-2002 11:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

No, AAMOF, we don't have a clue, any more than you have a clue as to whether or not I'm taller than my wife without having met either of us.

That's not true at all! Saying we don't know for sure is not the same as saying we don't have a clue. I'd say you are taller than your wife because on average men are taller than women. Note that I'm not saying I know it, but I can reason with a degree of accuracy greater than chance. Additionally (and this pertains to the issue at hand) I'm saying nothing about your worth or your wife's worth, only assessing something that can be predicted. Please don't try to tell me that you need to know everything with 100% certainty before you can make an educated guess. If so, how would progress ever be made in anything?

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-16-2002 11:14 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

I don't know about Jonathan, but I certainly don't agree. You would be pre-judging your hypothetical Jewish person, or in other words, you would be prejudiced. I consider prejudice to be a bad thing, don't you?

I don't like the term predjudice because it implies I'm judging the worth of the person. I'm not, I'm making an educated guess about an issue and the person's stance on it. Forming hypotheses about people isn't wrong, not at all, and I'm not ashamed to say I form hypotheses abotu people all the time without meeting them. I am likewise proud that I never form an opinion of the worth of an individual on such bases.

Me:
Joe is a man's name. I think Joe is a man. Therefore when he asks where the bathroom is, I will tell him where the men's room is.

Prejudice:
Joe is a man's name. I think Joe is a man. Therefore when he asks where the bathroom is, I tell him to buzz off because he is oppressing the women in this country.

Posted by ToolkiT on 10-16-2002 11:29 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *d'oh*

quote:
Originally posted by Toby

No, AAMOF, neither promised everything to everyone, and we are not even close to being in a Depression.[B]

What's AAMOF?
and you know the US is not in depression, I know it but a lot of people act like it is though..

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
This is exactly the equivalence argument which makes your position cheapened and trite.[B]

And that is why?

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Yes, AAMOF, by justifying it as what the US government gets for 'messing in the middle east for decades', that's effectively what you are saying. They didn't go after the people that messed there (Jimmy Carter is the one who started things in Iraq, and he gets a Nobel Peace Prize).
This attitude makes me a bit sick. Bush only became President in January of 2001. To expect him to take responsibilities and be a 'real man' and joining one who _is_ measurably culpable for it in criticizing him while accepting the Nobel Prize is the height of ridiculosity.

(yes, I made up that word)

They went after the US as a whole, not after Bush personally, in their eyes the whole of the US is evil...
And a the president of the US Bush is the spokesman for the US and he can admit mistakes made in the past by past presidents... Just like the Mea Culpa the pope did for things the church did wrong in the past.

Bush however seems to do the other thing because Sadam went after his daddy ( he litterally said something like that when somebody asked him if this was a personal thing :eek

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
[B]No, it makes it less funny because it seems pathetic and bitter and unrealistic. It doesn't even have a kernel of truth which often makes the best humor.[B]I think you missed the point of that reference, but at least their methods of acheiving power were similar.

It does have kernel of truth, Hitler kinda got democratically elected, while Bush kinda stole the election. Its nothing more than a kernel I agree, but the fact that the joke made such a twist in the end is what made it funny... but Humour is a personal (and probably cultural) thing... I probably don't like a lot of things you think are funny.. so be it..

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by John Nowak on 10-17-2002 01:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I don't like the term predjudice because it implies I'm judging the worth of the person.

Fortunately, your likes don't change the meaning of the word.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-17-2002 01:24 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by John Nowak

Fortunately, your likes don't change the meaning of the word.

But when someone calls me prejudice I can clarify that forming hypotheses based on fact is not a bad form of prejudice. Indeed, I'd say it isn't prejudice at all since I am not judging anyone or anything. The difference is clear: to judge someone is wrong, but to hypothesize about that person is not.

Prejudice: That person's skin is dark, so he must be an idiot.

Forming hypotheses: That person's skin is dark, so he is not likely to be my long-lost twin brother, but he is as worthy a person as I or anyone else.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-17-2002 02:36 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
as worthy a person as I

[OFF TOPIC]
KRamsauer, for someone who confesses bad grammar in another thread, you certainly got an A+ there!!

[/OFF TOPIC]

Posted by Toby on 10-17-2002 03:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
That's not true at all!

Yep, 'fraid so.

quote:
Saying we don't know for sure is not the same as saying we don't have a clue.

AAMOF, you don't have a clue.

quote:
I'd say you are taller than your wife because on average men are taller than women.

And you be wrong on both your basis for stating that, and in fact. Averages are meaningless for specific purposes. Averages are just that. They only mean something in regard to the population of data as a whole. Using them to make guesses about specific circumstances is flawed.

quote:
Note that I'm not saying I know it, but I can reason with a degree of accuracy greater than chance.

No, you can't.

quote:
Additionally (and this pertains to the issue at hand) I'm saying nothing about your worth or your wife's worth, only assessing something that can be predicted.

Your accuracy of prediction is lacking.

quote:
Please don't try to tell me that you need to know everything with 100% certainty before you can make an educated guess.

No, I'm saying that making an educated guess from whole population data trying to predict a single outcome is bad statistics. It's like trying to predict a single flip of a coin simply based on the knowledge that in general it will come up 50% heads and 50% tails.

quote:
If so, how would progress ever be made in anything?

By teaching people better statistical skills.

Posted by Toby on 10-17-2002 03:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I don't like the term predjudice because it implies I'm judging the worth of the person.

No, it says that you're making a judgement about a person in advance of having the facts based on incomplete data.

quote:
I'm not, I'm making an educated guess about an issue and the person's stance on it.

I think you need a bit more education then.

quote:
Forming hypotheses about people isn't wrong, not at all, and I'm not ashamed to say I form hypotheses abotu people all the time without meeting them. I am likewise proud that I never form an opinion of the worth of an individual on such bases.

There's an old saying about pride and falls or something.

quote:
Me:
Joe is a man's name. I think Joe is a man. Therefore when he asks where the bathroom is, I will tell him where the men's room is.

Prejudice:
Joe is a man's name. I think Joe is a man. Therefore when he asks where the bathroom is, I tell him to buzz off because he is oppressing the women in this country.

No, prejudice would be hearing someone say that they want to introduce you to their new acquaintance "Joe" who's the CEO of a major store chain. You think you're going to meet a guy, and wind up meeting Josephine. Trying to use general statistics on anything other than general circumstances is bad statistics.

Posted by K. Cannon on 10-17-2002 03:19 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
By teaching people better statistical skills.

I know I've quoted my father (a statistician at the Savannah River Site) before on VC, but here it goes again. His favorite joke:

"Did you hear about the statistician who drowned in the river b/c it was two feet deep, on average?"

Posted by Toby on 10-17-2002 03:42 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: *d'oh*

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
What's AAMOF?

As A Matter Of Fact.

quote:
and you know the US is not in depression, I know it but a lot of people act like it is though..

A lot of people act like a lot of things. Doesn't make them true or worthy of believing, though.

quote:
And that is why?

The attack on the World Trade Center was totally unprovoked. What possible justification can you see to it? It's the kick the dog if you've had a bad day syndrome. The dog had nothing to do with it. The dog was just the unsuspecting target which would put up the least resistance.

quote:
They went after the US as a whole, not after Bush personally, in their eyes the whole of the US is evil...

And saying that the US bears responsibility and guilt for it, is saying that they have a point, and is excusing it to a great extent.

quote:
And a the president of the US Bush is the spokesman for the US and he can admit mistakes made in the past by past presidents... Just like the Mea Culpa the pope did for things the church did wrong in the past.

Admitting other presidents made mistakes is not the same as bearing personal or even national responsibility. The church is also an entirely different entity, as would be a monarchy. There is no chain of succession, per se. After all, Carter helped out Iraq because he was trying to deal with Iran. The Republicans that followed got in trouble for helping out Iran (since Iraq was Russia's buddy).

quote:
Bush however seems to do the other thing because Sadam went after his daddy ( he litterally said something like that when somebody asked him if this was a personal thing :eek

He's never said that it was the sole reason for it.

quote:
It does have kernel of truth, Hitler kinda got democratically elected, while Bush kinda stole the election.

*sigh* No, Hitler was democratically elected to the German legislature and then wormed his way to head of the government through there. He wasn't democratically put in charge of Germany any more than Saddam was Iraq. Bush didn't steal an election either. He won it more fairly than John Quincy Adams or Rutherford Hayes (there weren't any back room dealings with Benjamin Harrison AFAIK). The electoral college is the system the states agreed to when the country was founded (or they were annexed).

quote:
Its nothing more than a kernel I agree,

Actually, I don't even think it's a kernel.

quote:
but the fact that the joke made such a twist in the end is what made it funny... but Humour is a personal (and probably cultural) thing... I probably don't like a lot of things you think are funny.. so be it..

I like a good twist of logic at the end of a joke, but the bitterness and unreality of it dimmed the humor quite a lot.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-17-2002 03:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Yep, 'fraid so. AAMOF, you don't have a clue.[B]And you be wrong on both your basis for stating that, and in fact. Averages are meaningless for specific purposes. Averages are just that. They only mean something in regard to the population of data as a whole. Using them to make guesses about specific circumstances is flawed.

So what you're saying is that you cannot use the averages that say men over a certain age are more likely to get prostate cancer and therefore should have a screening as an indication is might be smart to get screened? Obviously since you don't know you have cancer with 100% why should you get screened? You say stats only mean something in regards to the population as a whole. That's crazy, what makes up the population? Moreover, how was the stat derived in the first place? Exactly. From individual measurements.

quote:

No, you can't. Your accuracy of prediction is lacking. No, I'm saying that making an educated guess from whole population data trying to predict a single outcome is bad statistics. It's like trying to predict a single flip of a coin simply based on the knowledge that in general it will come up 50% heads and 50% tails.

I never claimed 100% accuracy. I'm only claiming better than chance results. Using your example of a coin flip, I cannot predict any better than chance for by definition coin flipping is random. But, if I'm armed with a study of heart disease risk factors and shown a list of three people, a 3 year old girl, a 15 year old boy and a 55 year old boy, I can guess with greater than chance odds the person who will contract heart disease first. Of course I may be wrong, but by all means I'm going to be better than chance. That is all I'm saying here. I am not claiming omniscient powers but rather by using demonstrated relationships I can form ideas of how things are going to be before I see them and doing so does not make me a bad person

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-17-2002 03:59 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
"Did you hear about the statistician who drowned in the river b/c it was two feet deep, on average?"

As per my point, if someone were to jump into said river with rocks tied to his feet (so he couldn't swim), provided he didn't fall down, he'd survive an overwhelming majority of the time. Not all the time, but most of the time.

Uhoh, I'm prejudice! I should be shot. I assumed that this "man" is tall enough to stand in 2 foot deep water and survive. Not everyone can do such a thing so my statement is a mark of an evil soul.

See what happens when you try to play absolutes?

Posted by Toby on 10-17-2002 05:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
So what you're saying is that you cannot use the averages that say men over a certain age are more likely to get prostate cancer and therefore should have a screening as an indication is might be smart to get screened?

No, I'm saying that you can't say that because a man is over a certain age he _has_ prostate cancer simply because the numbers point to a certain percentage of men over that age do.

quote:
Obviously since you don't know you have cancer with 100% why should you get screened? You say stats only mean something in regards to the population as a whole.

When trying to use them for predictive purposes, yet.

quote:
That's crazy,

You are Brian Fellow, and I pass on the guest spot on Safari Planet.

quote:
what makes up the population? Moreover, how was the stat derived in the first place? Exactly. From individual measurements.

No, the stat was derived from aggregating individual, random measurements and running calculations to get an acceptable degree of accuracy (to the statisticians) for extrapolation to the whole.

quote:
I never claimed 100% accuracy. I'm only claiming better than chance results.

And, you're more than likely going to be wrong as your anecdotal sample size increases.

quote:
Using your example of a coin flip, I cannot predict any better than chance for by definition coin flipping is random.

No, it's not. Coin-flips will on average even out to fifty-fifty. It's the same thing. Just like in Vegas, the house is guaranteed a certain take on average. That doesn't stop people from thinking they're the lucky one who's going to win the jackpot.

quote:
But, if I'm armed with a study of heart disease risk factors and shown a list of three people, a 3 year old girl, a 15 year old boy and a 55 year old boy, I can guess with greater than chance odds the person who will contract heart disease first.

No, you can't because you don't know a single thing about any of them. The 3 year old girl may have some congenital defect which defies the odds. You have no basis to make claims on individuals based on general statistics.

quote:
Of course I may be wrong, but by all means I'm going to be better than chance.

No, you're not necessarily.

quote:
That is all I'm saying here.

And you're wrong.

quote:
I am not claiming omniscient powers but rather by using demonstrated relationships I can form ideas of how things are going to be before I see them and doing so does not make me a bad person

I didn't say anything about whether it made you a bad person. It does make you a bad user of statistics, though.

Posted by Toby on 10-17-2002 05:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
As per my point, if someone were to jump into said river with rocks tied to his feet (so he couldn't swim), provided he didn't fall down, he'd survive an overwhelming majority of the time. Not all the time, but most of the time.

No, you can't make that determination. You don't have enough data. You don't know where the deep spots are or where the shallow spots are, and you have no idea how deep or shallow they are. You only know the _average_. It doesn't tell you a thing about the spot you're getting ready to jump into.

quote:
Uhoh, I'm prejudice! I should be shot.

*sigh* No. No one is saying that you should be shot.

quote:
I assumed that this "man" is tall enough to stand in 2 foot deep water and survive.

Nowhere in that statement does it contain any guarantee that _any_ spot in the river has 2 foot deep water. Remember it's an average.

quote:
Not everyone can do such a thing so my statement is a mark of an evil soul.

Now you're being absurd.

quote:
See what happens when you try to play absolutes?

You're the only one playing absolutes from what I can see.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-17-2002 05:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Coin-flips will on average even out to fifty-fifty. It's the same thing. Just like in Vegas, the house is guaranteed a certain take on average. That doesn't stop people from thinking they're the lucky one who's going to win the jackpot. No, you can't because you don't know a single thing about any of them. The 3 year old girl may have some congenital defect which defies the odds. You have no basis to make claims on individuals based on general statistics. It does make you a bad user of statistics, though.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Never once have I claimed to know everything but randomly select three people, one three year old, one fifteen year old and one 60 year old, and I'll make you a bet. I can select the person who will develop heart disease first, and if I'm right, you'll pay me 3x what I bet (so if I give you $1 you will pay me $3). In that situation I can call your bluff because you will go broke really fast. You are simply being difficult and not understanding the meaning of predictive statistics. If you take this bet, you're the poor user of stats. I can only hope that is true becaue I need money.

Since I find it hard to believe anyone who sounds educated can be misunderstanding this, simply answer me this:
Do you believe that I cannot predict with better than 50% accuracy who is richer, a randomly selected CEO or an randomly selected African?

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-17-2002 06:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
No, you can't make that determination. You don't have enough data. You don't know where the deep spots are or where the shallow spots are, and you have no idea how deep or shallow they are. You only know the _average_. It doesn't tell you a thing about the spot you're getting ready to jump into.

And hence my mention of "most likely." I never said always. Please read what I'm writing. Your constant misunderstandings are quite frustrating.

quote:
*sigh* No. No one is saying that you should be shot.

This began as my stating it isn't wrong to use knowledge about someone to predict their opinions. I was being called prejudiced and hence a bad person. I'm presently pointing out that of course said methods aren't perfect, but they are at use all the time and there is nothing wrong with them. For instance why do advertisers advertise more geriatric products during daytime TV and more malt beverage ads during youth oriented shows? Of course not everyone watching fits their target audience but the odds are in their favor.

quote:
Nowhere in that statement does it contain any guarantee that _any_ spot in the river has 2 foot deep water. Remember it's an average.

But it does guarantee that picking a point randomly from the surface of the water, odds are the depth of that water is less than 2 feet and thus odds are the person will not drown. Again I did not claim each and every time the person would survive, but only if you dumped a million people in, each at a random point, more than half of them would live.

Posted by KRamsauer on 10-17-2002 06:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

"Did you hear about the statistician who drowned in the river b/c it was two feet deep, on average?"

If you drown in 6 feet of water, you stand a 1/3 chance of drowning at the most. Sounds good to me, especially when you consider that a worst case scenerio. More statisticians will live than will die.

Posted by Toby on 10-17-2002 06:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

Perhaps, but I know at this point that you don't understand what I'm saying.

quote:
Never once have I claimed to know everything

Nor did I say you did.

quote:
but randomly select three people, one three year old, one fifteen year old and one 60 year old, and I'll make you a bet. I can select the person who will develop heart disease first, and if I'm right, you'll pay me 3x what I bet (so if I give you $1 you will pay me $3). In that situation I can call your bluff because you will go broke really fast.

It's not a bluff, and I'm not betting because it's a silly bet, and it also wouldn't mean anything no matter which of us won. It's like betting on a coin toss.

quote:
You are simply being difficult and not understanding the meaning of predictive statistics.

I'm not being difficult, and I think that you understand predictive statistics less than I do if you think they'll tell you anything about a specific case from a general number.

quote:
If you take this bet, you're the poor user of stats. I can only hope that is true becaue I need money.

I don't need the money, so I have no desire to bet. Regardless, you're still not getting the point here.

quote:
Since I find it hard to believe anyone who sounds educated can be misunderstanding this, simply answer me this:
Do you believe that I cannot predict with better than 50% accuracy who is richer, a randomly selected CEO or an randomly selected African?

It would still be 2 out of 3 against you, though, even if you did manage to do it.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM.

Pages (24): « First ... « 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 » ... Last »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page