Page 77 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast
Results 761 to 770 of 1236

Thread: Just Plain Wrong

  1. #761
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    He never said "5% of a population." I'm not sure if he was referring to a study with the color-blindness, but whether he was or not I'm pretty sure it was assumed that any data or hypothetical reasoning was from a sample, not a population.
    First, he called a population "statistically significant" because they totaled 5%.

    Second: a population is the group from which a sample is drawn. Since the normal distribution being discussed was not that of a sample, but that of the total population, we are clearly talking about populations. Your assumption is based on your ignorance of what was being discussed, as you have admitted ( I put your admission of ignorance in bold for you so that you are aware of that admission).

    Third: He was obviously not referring to a study, which is abundantly clear by virtue of his answer to the very question "What study are you referring to?". See posts 739 and 740 for evidence of this. It's important to not be ignorant of what's being discussed before injecting yourself into a discussion.



    This is what I first saw, which (at least in statistics) doesn't make much sense. Especially because 5% on each side of a normal curve is almost always the maximum any statistician would use in determining if something occurred by chance (normally) or due to something else.
    Now who's never taken a stats class?

    What does my statement that you quoted have to do with determining chance?

  2. #762
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    41

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    First, he called a population "statistically significant" because they totaled 5%.

    Second: a population is the group from which a sample is drawn. Since the normal distribution being discussed was not that of a sample, but that of the total population, we are clearly talking about populations. Your assumption is based on your ignorance of what was being discussed, as you have admitted ( I put your admission of ignorance in bold for you so that you are aware of that admission).

    Third: He was obviously not referring to a study, which is abundantly clear by virtue of his answer to the very question "What study are you referring to?". See posts 739 and 740 for evidence of this. It's important to not be ignorant of what's being discussed before injecting yourself into a discussion.





    Now who's never taken a stats class?

    What does my statement that you quoted have to do with determining chance?
    Yes he worded it wrong but his implications were obvious. Read what Chaddelamancha just recently posted. And then Ecofarm's response.

    As for my quote, that's all normal curves are in statistics. They show a distribution of all the possible outcomes. And when tests are performed you are measuring whether or not something was due to chance.

    What I was getting at with my post is that when you suddenly claim that everything that extends 1 SD of a normal curve is "abnormal," it makes no sense. Even if cutoffs are arbitrary, which you said after that quote, it still makes no sense because it doesn't apply like that. But this is getting old so I'm gonna call it a day with this thread.

  3. #763
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaddelamancha View Post
    I don't believe that ecofarm meant 5% of the population, instead it meant you could prove the hypothesis that "partial (especially minor) color blindness isn't abnormal" if you used 5% as your level of significance.
    This also shows an ignorance of what statistical significance is. Statistical significance would have no bearing on normal or abnormal under any circumstances.

    Statistical significance ALWAYS, 100% of the time, refers to teh likluihood that the results of a study occured by chance.

    There's a reason I asked him what study he was referring to when he used that term.

    He may not have used the words "5% of a population" but no matter how you cut it, that's what his comment was doing.


    Either way, you are not arguing the same thing. When something falls within two standard deviations (or 95%) it is considered normal. That is different than saying 95% of the population.
    It isn't different at all. The 95% refers to the total population that falls within the range of 4 standard deviations of the distribution that "within 2 standard deviations" encompasses (two above the mean, two below the mean).



    There would only be 2.2% of the population further than 2sd's above the mean, and there would only be 2.2% of the population more than 2sds below the mean.

    If you use the two SD rule to define normal, then you are saying that 95% of the population is normal.

    Tucker Case argued that using the two standard deviations as a model, then color blindness would be considered normal, which is inaccurate, unless the statistical analysis was done on the entire population.
    Colorblindness doesn't fall on a bell curve, so I was actually using the 95% rule of thumb that coincides with the normal distribution. Once we make "normal" a product of percentages, where 95% are normal, and 5% are not, we have an easy way to calculate "normal" for distributions that don't follow the bell curve based on the percentage of population.

    Colorblindness is believed to be as much as 10% of the male population. By using the rule of thumb related to percentages, it would be normal.

  4. #764
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    And when tests are performed you are measuring whether or not something was due to chance.
    Keyword in bold. Nothing you quoted from me discussed tests in any way. The first time tests were even introduced was when eco misused the term "statistically significant".

    No test exists which defines normality.

    Even if cutoffs are arbitrary, which you said after that quote, it still makes no sense because it doesn't apply like that. But this is getting old so I'm gonna call it a day with this thread.
    If you agree that the cut offs are arbitrary, why doesn't it make sense to you?

    Normal is simply another word for common. that which is encompassed by 68% of the population is certainly common, no?

  5. #765
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    BTW, there is a reason I chose the arbitrary cut off of one standard deviation when one wants to use a statistical definition of "normal" that relates to the topic at hand and it wasn't so that I could have homosexuality in the "abnormal" range (it might fall into that range if 2 standard deviations from the mean was used as well).

    It was done that way so that a great many other things would fall into the "abnormal" range that people do not want to be considered abnormal.

    Ultimately, it was to illustrate the asinine and fallacious nature of the "normal" debate, regardless of the definition of "normal" one chooses to use. Normal =/= good, abnormal =/= bad.

    Basically, I'm saying that I understand the resistance to my choice to limit "normality" to one standard deviation from the mean. But it's important to remember that such resistance was the goal of my decision to limit it in this way.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 12-22-11 at 05:10 PM.

  6. #766
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 01:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    41

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    BTW, there is a reason I chose the arbitrary cut off of one standard deviation when one wants to use a statistical definition of "normal" that relates to the topic at hand and it wasn't so that I could have homosexuality in the "abnormal" range (it might fall into that range if 2 standard deviations from the mean was used as well).

    It was done that way so that a great many other things would fall into the "abnormal" range that people do not want to be considered abnormal.

    Ultimately, it was to illustrate the asinine and fallacious nature of the "normal" debate, regardless of the definition of "normal" one chooses to use. Normal =/= good, abnormal =/= bad.

    Basically, I'm saying that I understand the resistance to my choice to limit "normality" to one standard deviation from the mean. But it's important to remember that such resistance was the goal of my decision to limit it in this way.
    Yeah the only problem I had with that was that significance level is determined somewhat arbitrarily, but that's only in tests. Since it wasn't a test, and therefore no significance level, it was just a matter of opinion, wasn't it? An educated opinion because you've taken statistics... But an opinion nonetheless?

  7. #767
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    Yeah the only problem I had with that was that significance level is determined somewhat arbitrarily, but that's only in tests. Since it wasn't a test, and therefore no significance level, it was just a matter of opinion, wasn't it? An educated opinion because you've taken statistics... But an opinion nonetheless?
    Absolutely.


    Although I should add that since I was doing it to essentially make that point, it would probably be more appropriate to say it how I decided to portray my opinion, rather than it being my actual opinion of "normal".

    Basically, the point is that what one considers "normal" is always an opinion statement, even when one tries to use a statistical basis for their opinion. The arbitrary nature of all possible statistical cut-offs means that the entire debate is a waste of time.

    I apologize to everyone involved fo the way that the illustration of this point played out, because it was not my intention to have it go that way. For some reason, I allowed myself to get sucked into the statistical debate and actually lost sight of my intended purpose. I had one of those major brain-fart moments. Shortly before I posted my last post explaining myself, it dawned on me I was being an idiot by arguing so strongly for a position I didn't even hold (I basically reject the idea that an objective determination of "normal" really exists).

    Again, my apologies for this lapse.

  8. #768
    Guru
    Chaddelamancha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    09-22-17 @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,546

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    This also shows an ignorance of what statistical significance is. Statistical significance would have no bearing on normal or abnormal under any circumstances.
    Semantics. Would it have appeased you if I had stated the hypothesis as "the chance of someone being partial (especially minor) color blind"? It's silly to ridicule people because of semantics.

    As for rest about defining normal as +/- one deviation? Sounds like an opinion I could get behind. Honestly I have given up defining normal/abnormal for others a long time ago. My definition is pretty far out there in regards to abnormal compared to most.
    Hail to the King baby!

  9. #769
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,801

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    CC your typical debate style of no substance and bullying and bogarting does NOT work with me...your twisting and fabricating others intent and meaning will not work either....you will NOT win this debate asking a perpetual question ad nausem. Ive answered your question several times...your twisting my response to fit your need to avoid answering mine is typical of your avoidance tactics..so again
    Define how homosexuality is Normal.
    Actually, lpast, you cannot win this. There is no one at DP more stubborn than I. You have not answered the question in any satisfactory way. In this thread alone, you have given a definition, then contradicted the very definition you gave, demonstrating your hypocrisy on the issue. Once you answer the question, you will get my answer... not before.

    Define normal.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #770
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,801

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Probably a dumb question but what constitutes normal, statistically? Within two standard deviations?
    Depending on the hypothesis and the level of deviation the individual performing the hypothesis is looking for to define "within normal limits". Most times, this would be, as you said, two standard deviations, though sometimes it is one.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 77 of 124 FirstFirst ... 2767757677787987 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •