Steerzing in a New Direction...

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2281

Post by John D »

So... okay. Would anyone not want to have a few beers with 90 year old William Shatner? Haha.


Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2283

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Branca's latest take: Binger is playing to at least one ideologically-motivated juror, identified or hoped for, to trigger a hung jury:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/g ... n-endgame/

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2012
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2284

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

John D wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:50 am
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
They had effectively won the trial already and they only needed to avoid giving the prosecution any openings. The prosecution's case was essentially dead until the provocation angle breathed new life into it. The defence did not push hard enough to get the image evidence and most likely consideration of provocation out of the picture. The judge was practically asking the defence for reasons to do that and Richards was half-hearted and even said it didn't really matter.
Defense is spelled D-E-F-E-N-S-E... but that is a cheap shot. Are you a lawyer? Do you really know what the jury is thinking? Maybe the defense had a reason to think they needed Kyle to testify. Maybe they had a "fake" jury in the background giving feedback. Maybe the defense wanted the prosecutor to put more and more bullshit into evidence. This stupid photo (added late) might make him look desperate... so they didn't object. I don't know for sure.... but you are not convincing me that you know anything more than I do. Let's see what happens.
I considered altering the spelling in deference to the predominantly yank audience, but I can't bring myself to deliberately misspell since I probably already make enough inadvertent errors to look a bit uneducated.

IANAL, so I didn't express my opinions at first, I did so after having my frustrations validated by a host of actual lawyers. The prevailing opinion, at least amongst the lawyers I'm watching, is that defence performance is way beyond just sub-optimal. I've only just learned of yet another example of Richards' insanity. It didn't occur to me, until it was mentioned in the Rekieta vid below, that character witnesses for Huber and Rosenbaum started opening the door to the defence exposing their histories and, instead of giving them enough rope to hang themselves, Richards warned the prosecution and they promptly stopped. My gut reactions were only marginally influenced by Barnes' pre-trial statements, but I'm busy watching him on Rekieta Law and what he says makes a lot of sense. The reason for objecting the fuck out of Binger is to prime the judge to pull the trigger when Binger pulls a violation of the fifth. Richards attitude seems to be that he can't lose so he doesn't really care what the prosecution does.

For those unafraid of being mind-controlled by Robert Barnes or of giving him a hearing.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2285

Post by Service Dog »

monday morning kyletrial uplift

You see, most people think
Great God will come from the sky
Take away everything
And make everybody feel high
But if you know what life is worth
You would look for yours on earth
And now you see the light
You stand up for your rights

We sick & tired of your 'ism-schism game
Dying, going to heaven in-a Jesus' name, Lord
We know when we understand
Almighty God is a living man
You can fool some people sometimes
But you couldn't fool all the people all the time
And now we see the light
You stand up for your rights!

get up stand up

stand up for your rights

get up stand up

dont give up the fight









Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2286

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Weapons charge just got dismissed.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2287

Post by Service Dog »

Fegg wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
Fegg wrote: The trick the defence pulled off on the gun possession charge was absolutely brilliant and the prosecution never saw it coming.
What was the trick?
The only elements of the possession charge which are in evidence are:
a) the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was in possession of the gun.
b) the length of the gun as measured by the police witness.

The other elements of the crime can not be argued because they are not in evidence-so the only basis the question can be argued is on the length of the gun. And that will be in the instructions to the jury. Unless the jury believes beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was shorter than the police witness said it was - they must find the defendant not guilty of that charge.

The prosecution did not take notice that the defence got measurements of the gun into evidence.

Maybe I got this wrong, but that was what they seemed to be arguing about on Friday.
You were 100% correct Fegg!

Nice!

The moment in court just-now was beautiful.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 2012
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2288

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Not confident at all about closing arguments. There has been very little effort made to set the real background to the shootings, which is a vital aspect of the case. I don't know how many of you have heard Elijah Schaffer's description of the riots. I don't think I've heard any other sources describe the air of hatred, the intensity of violence and the lack of police control involved. There has been no emphasis at all on the number of armed out of state individuals present with the clear intent of causing mayhem. According to Elijah the first shot fired was not in the air but toward where he and Rittenhouse were and the shooting of Rosenb was followed by multiple gunshots from other people. Kyle was being chased by rioters armed with hammers,two-by-fours and most likely guns. This is all important in setting the scene.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2289

Post by Steersman »

fuzzy wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Rekieta panel
I sometimes peek in at that chat in the hours before broadcast to see what's new, and saw that Mykeru Media had posted a joke. I wonder how things finally resolved out of his job ... It was looking pretty dire, as best I can recall.
Now there's a blast from the past; was kinda wondering what had happened to him the other day. Probably still "greedily trying to sell t-shirts" ... ;)

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 26#p363526

Though not sure whether that post of his here was before or after that "out of his job" that you referred to.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2290

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: LOL.
Chapter 23, in which Jerry 'Rainman' Coyne discovers Hemant Mehta is a backstabbing biatch. Plus sundry duck photos:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/11/ ... logue-353/


I fucking despise atheist activism, lock, stock, and barrel.
"Why Evolution Is True" is generally a great site - not to say blog ... - but he does have something of a thin skin and "doesn't take criticism well". Seem to recollect he blocked me for suggesting that his "anti-free-will" position was largely an article of faith little better than those of the religious. And I seem to recollect that he wasn't much impressed with my criticism of his view that sex was bimodal instead of, by definition, binary. Seem to recollect the thread was in the context of or referenced a more or less credible take by Colin Wright of Quillette fame (managing editor):



Wright's "failing" being that he - among far too many others - insists that pretty much all of us [>98%] are males or females. Which is so much anti-scientific and anti-intellectual claptrap; by definition, some third of us are sexless. [The foregoing has been a paid political announcement ... ;) ]

But you have something of a point with "atheist activism". The "problem" is that atheists are still humans - more or less - and exhibit pretty much the same failings that characterize those who aren't atheists. Reminds me of a post by Massimo Pigliucci:
The Harris-Chomsky exchange, in my mind, summarizes a lot of what I find unpleasant about SAM [Skeptic-Atheist-Movement]: a community who worships celebrities who are often intellectual dilettantes, or at the very least have a tendency to talk about things of which they manifestly know very little; an ugly undertone of in-your-face confrontation and I’m-smarter-than-you-because-I-agree-with [insert your favorite New Atheist or equivalent]; loud proclamations about following reason and evidence wherever they may lead, accompanied by a degree of groupthink and unwillingness to change one’s mind that is trumped only by religious fundamentalists; and, lately, a willingness to engage in public shaming and other vicious social networking practices any time someone says something that doesn’t fit our own opinions, all the while of course claiming to protect “free speech” at all costs. ....

I’d rather have a productive conversation with an intelligent Christian than a frustrating one with an obtuse atheist, and believe me, there is plenty of both out there.
https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/201 ... movements/

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2291

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Steersman wrote: ... he does have something of a thin skin and "doesn't take criticism well". Seem to recollect he blocked me for suggesting that his "anti-free-will" position was largely an article of faith little better than those of the religious.
I'm sure he just could't help himself.

I got banned for not agreeing that gun ownership in the US should be limited to break-action shotguns.

And I seem to recollect that he wasn't much impressed with my criticism of his view that sex was bimodal instead of, by definition, binary.
A distinction without a difference. I let that one slide because all the DimWEITs were piling on me for going against The Jerry.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2292

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

The state's three hour close v. Rittenhouse can be summed up thus:

ADA Unicorn: "That AR-15 had no lawful or legitimate purpose that night."
ADA Miss Piggy: "If you are shooting an AR at anybody, you have no regard for life."

I doubt that Bingerboi is so scared of all big, long black objects, but if one juror is, they may get a hung jury.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2293

Post by John D »

Haha. So.... somehow I missed this Netflix special.

"Twelve Years a Running Back"

Colin Kaepernick = "Throwsa Parks"


John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2294

Post by John D »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: The state's three hour close v. Rittenhouse can be summed up thus:

ADA Unicorn: "That AR-15 had no lawful or legitimate purpose that night."
ADA Miss Piggy: "If you are shooting an AR at anybody, you have no regard for life."

I doubt that Bingerboi is so scared of all big, long black objects, but if one juror is, they may get a hung jury.
Did you see where Binger actually pointed the AR at the jury and had his finger on the trigger. WTF! Haha!

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2295

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Gotta cut ADA Sparkle Pony some slack -- usually when he's handling something big, black and hard, he wants it to go off.

fag_flag.jpg
(50.39 KiB) Downloaded 170 times

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2296

Post by John D »

TRIGGER DISCIPLINE.... WTF. The Alex Baldwin school of gun safety?!? If I was on the jury I would have screamed at this fucker.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2297

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: TRIGGER DISCIPLINE.... WTF. The Alex Baldwin school of gun safety?!? If I was on the jury I would have screamed at this fucker.


John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2298

Post by John D »

#Triggerfingerbinger

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17681
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2299

Post by Brive1987 »

Steersman wrote:
fuzzy wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Rekieta panel
I sometimes peek in at that chat in the hours before broadcast to see what's new, and saw that Mykeru Media had posted a joke. I wonder how things finally resolved out of his job ... It was looking pretty dire, as best I can recall.
Now there's a blast from the past; was kinda wondering what had happened to him the other day. Probably still "greedily trying to sell t-shirts" ... ;)

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 26#p363526

Though not sure whether that post of his here was before or after that "out of his job" that you referred to.
2016 Pit was good Pit.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2300

Post by Service Dog »

CDC: Global Measles outbreak warning after 22 Million Missed Vaccinations Due To COVID Restrictions

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/c ... trictions/

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2301

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Mostly peaceful jury intimidation:

Screen-Shot-2021-11-16-at-3.54.20-PM-700x392.png
(118.72 KiB) Downloaded 124 times

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2302

Post by John D »

I just survived a very trying event. I have come out the other side.... but I am not better for having taken the journey.

One of you fuckers told me I had to read Diamond's "Collapse". I did it... (well at least I did the whole audio book.)

A truly terrible event in my life. Pedantic, repetitive, wandering, disorganized, pointless. A few interesting bits of trivia.

A nice little 150 page book about how some ancient civilizations failed turned into a wandering pointless 600 page snooze fest.

Fuck off!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2303

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: CDC: Global Measles outbreak warning after 22 Million Missed Vaccinations Due To COVID Restrictions

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/c ... trictions/
So NOW you're in favour of vaccinations? ;)

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2304

Post by Steersman »

Brive1987 wrote:
Steersman wrote:
<snip>

Now there's a blast from the past; was kinda wondering what had happened to him the other day. Probably still "greedily trying to sell t-shirts" ... ;)

http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 26#p363526

Though not sure whether that post of his here was before or after that "out of his job" that you referred to.
2016 Pit was good Pit.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ... :)

Somewhat apropos of which, seem to recollect that you were the one who first posted a link to Larry - cofounder of Wikipedia - Sanger's "Internet Silos". Which seems to characterize far too many discussion boards and forums, The SlymePit being a notable exception.

ICYMI, you might like Sanger's later critiques of Wikipedia for them having abandoned, more or less, their claim to fame and fortune, their "neutral point of view" which is looking rather tattered of late:

https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikiped ... ent-464746

Bonus is my comment thereat and a link to my own Medium article on Wikipedia's Lysenkoism ... ;)

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2305

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: One of you fuckers told me I had to read Diamond's "Collapse". I did it... (well at least I did the whole audio book.)

A truly terrible event in my life. Pedantic, repetitive, wandering, disorganized, pointless. A few interesting bits of trivia.

A nice little 150 page book about how some ancient civilizations failed turned into a wandering pointless 600 page snooze fest.

Fuck off!
I asked whether Micheal "Happy Thoughts" Schellenberger had ever addressed any of the concerns raised in Collapse, and you said 'oh I'll have to read it.' That's on you, brat.

But here's a reading recommendation perhaps more to your liking:

Apocalypse Never.jpg
(101.28 KiB) Downloaded 106 times

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2306

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Steersman wrote: ... he does have something of a thin skin and "doesn't take criticism well". Seem to recollect he blocked me for suggesting that his "anti-free-will" position was largely an article of faith little better than those of the religious.
I'm sure he just could't help himself.
:) Little to no "free will" in his case at least. At least heavily compromised or adulterated by various biases of one sort or another.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I got banned for not agreeing that gun ownership in the US should be limited to break-action shotguns.
Rather quick on the banhammer; almost as bad as PZ.
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
And I seem to recollect that he wasn't much impressed with my criticism of his view that sex was bimodal instead of, by definition, binary.
A distinction without a difference. I let that one slide because all the DimWEITs were piling on me for going against The Jerry.
In many cases that might well be true. But not in all of them. The distinction is rather crucial in more than a few where such misuses and ambiguities have a great many serious ramifications and consequences.

I find it rather bizarre in so many ways that so many are so unable to accept the standard biological definitions for the sexes as the only coherent and consistent game in town. If the issue was people of 20 to 40 claiming to "self-identify" as teenagers and claiming whatever rights that might go along with being in that category then most people would have no difficultly in concluding that those "transteenagers" were madder than hatters since "teenager" has objective criteria for category membership that they didn't possess. But when it comes to being in the "male" and "female" sex categories, pretty much everyone claims "sex is immutable" yet are incapable of specifying exactly what defining and essential trait is immutable.

The whole phenomenon looks increasingly like the Rape of the Lock Part Deux, like a "bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood" as feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones once put it, like a Lilliputian civil war over who gets to claim the golden apple for the fairest, for the right to wear the labels "female" and "woman".

And sadly, ostensible scientists like Colin Wright and Jerry Coyne are not helping matters at all by engaging in what is little short of scientism, little short of cargo-cult science, particularly with the latter's use of "bimodal". For instance, Coyne made a rather risible claim that is little short of joining the ranks of PZ and company - again - by suggesting that sex is a spectrum:
“sex in humans is bimodal: if you do a frequency plot with ‘sex’ on the X axis and ‘frequency of individuals conforming to that sex’ on the Y axis, you get a huge peak at ‘male’, another huge peak at ‘female’, and then a few tiny blips in between that conform to hermaphrodites or intersexes’
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/02/ ... nt-1810922

While statistics can be remarkably complicated - much of it is well outside my salary range, the basics should be readily grasped by anyone with some basic high school math under their belts. Rather sad that Coyne, for all his biology chops, seems deficient on that score since his "sex on the X axis" and "tiny blips [of the] hermaphrodites or intersexes" is basically underwriting the "thesis" that those two categories, those two "blips", are neither males nor females but are third and fourth sexes. He should check out this offer of a million dollars for proof of other sexes, of the existence of other gametes [spergs & speggs?]:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210118114 ... an-gamete/

But what's particularly annoying about Coyne's misuse of the word is that "bimodal" is apparently only used in the context of "bimodal distributions" which are population distributions of frequency as a function of a continuous variable (on the X axis), which are "statistical distributions having two maxima" with mimima on either side and in between those maxima:

Wikipedia_BimodalDistribution1A.jpg
(78.36 KiB) Downloaded 100 times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution

A condition which is clearly not at all present in the case of the standard binary biological definitions for the sexes which are binary by definition with no continuous variations between them.

But it makes as little sense to talk about sex being bimodal as it would to say that the states of boolean logic are bimodal, or that the automatic and manual modes of a camera makes it bimodal. People CAN use those words in inconsistent and quite unscientific ways. As we CAN say "two equals plus four two". But such constructions tend to be inconsistent and incoherent at best. And they tend to muddy the waters and preclude the equitable resolution of often quite thorny or sticky social problems.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2307

Post by John D »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
John D wrote: One of you fuckers told me I had to read Diamond's "Collapse". I did it... (well at least I did the whole audio book.)

A truly terrible event in my life. Pedantic, repetitive, wandering, disorganized, pointless. A few interesting bits of trivia.

A nice little 150 page book about how some ancient civilizations failed turned into a wandering pointless 600 page snooze fest.

Fuck off!
I asked whether Micheal "Happy Thoughts" Schellenberger had ever addressed any of the concerns raised in Collapse, and you said 'oh I'll have to read it.' That's on you, brat.

But here's a reading recommendation perhaps more to your liking:


Apocalypse Never.jpg
God Damit... it was you.... fuck you Matt! You tricked me. You wasted 600 pages of my time..... TIME I CAN NEVER GET BACK!!!!!!

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2308

Post by John D »

Sex and gender have nothing to do with normal distributions. Most distributions in nature are not normally distributed. People like to say everything is normally distributed because it makes the math easier. And… well… applying a bimodal normal distribution to sex difference is just fucking retarded. I had a bad day today and I am not suffering fools right now. Take a few fucking masters level stat courses and then we can talk.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2309

Post by John D »

And I was pissed off that I was discussing the probability of certain medical treatments and he said… “well I don’t understand statistics “. This is my fucking doctor. WTF! He has people’s lives in his hands and he doesn’t understand statistics. And… my wife is vomiting every other day… and she will not even try to change her piles of medication to try to stop puking. She just says that she will not change her meds until the doc tells her… and the doc says to me “oh yeah… Sandy is a great patient… she does everything will tell her.” Yeah… she will take any med you give her but she is morbidly obese, eats tons of carbs, and never gets off the Lasyboy.” Great work doctor. Not a good day.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2310

Post by Service Dog »


Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2311

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: Sex and gender have nothing to do with normal distributions. .... And… well… applying a bimodal normal distribution to sex difference is just fucking retarded.
Bee in your bonnet? First, wasting 600 pages of your time, then a shot from Matt that Pollyanna might be more to your liking, followed by your wife being a "challenge" (I can sympathize), and what else can a man do but kick the dog? ;)

But don't think you have any idea how normal distributions are used in the context of sex and gender. And may not know as much about statistics as you may think. Though a general ignorance of even the basics of statistics causes no end of unnecessary grief and animosity, right from "The Damore Incident" through to current "debates" on whether sex is a binary or a spectrum.

However, I think you're barking up the wrong tree - may not even be in the right forest - with your "applying a ... normal distribution to sex difference is just fucking retarded". There's no "normal distribution" to sex itself - as you sort of suggested - but only in other traits - height for example - that show different means and standard deviations by sex. Consider this pair of overlapping distributions of heights I had created based on common and actual demographics - women are nominally, on average, about 4 inches shorter than men:

Mathematica_PopHghtCompare_2A_Sctn.JPG
(29.95 KiB) Downloaded 85 times

The distribution on the left - in blue - is for women and shows an average height of 165 cm (about 65", 5'5") with a standard deviation of 10 cm (4"). And the distribution on the right - in pink - is for men and shows an average height of 175 cm (about 69", 5'9") with the same standard deviation of 10 cm (4"). Those are "joint probability distributions" by heights on, say, the x axis (left to right) and sexes on the y axis (front to back) with the frequency on the z axis (vertically). Although, as sex is a discrete and binary variable, the three-dimensional picture and structure shown in the Wikipedia article really isn't necessary. The overlapping structure shown above is sufficient; mentally push one of the graphs into the background, into the third dimension if that helps you to visualize the differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_pro ... stribution

And those "joint probability distributions" are ubiquitous, and not just in sex and gender discussions where they're used to illustrate different means and standard deviations that vary by sex, as a function of sex. For instance, here's a "joint probability distribution" of agreeableness by sex - women tend to score higher, on average, than do men - that I had uploaded to Wikimedia clipped from an article on "Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the Big Five":

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... blenes.jpg

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00178/full

Similarly, an article at 4thWaveNow - No Child is Born in the Wrong Body - that you might be interested in reading, even if only to get a better handle on where your daughter and her friends are coming from:

https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-ch ... -identity/

Of particular note is the graph of another joint probability distribution, by sex, of a composite of personality traits:

FourthWaveNow_BornInWrongBody1A.jpg
(73.15 KiB) Downloaded 83 times

Again, it is not that sex itself that has a "bimodal distribution" - whatever that might mean. It's that a great many physiological and psychological traits show significant differences in frequencies and average values by sex. Information that is, or should be, of some value in resolving the sex-gender "debates".
John D wrote: Most distributions in nature are not normally distributed. People like to say everything is normally distributed because it makes the math easier. .... I had a bad day today and I am not suffering fools right now. Take a few fucking masters level stat courses and then we can talk.
Really? You may wish to read these articles then on "the ubiquity of the normal distribution", the first one by a "physicist with a master degree in computational physics", and the second by "a science writer and visiting professor of science at Aston University":

https://ekamperi.github.io/mathematics/ ... itous.html

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/wh ... biquitous/

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2312

Post by fafnir »

Is height normally distributed, or is a normal distribution a good enough approximation that it not being a normal distribution mostly doesn't matter? It seems intuitively that it wouldn't actually be normal.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2313

Post by John D »

I imagine that height is sort of normally distributed... but it is a broad approximation.

<Begin rant on normal distributions>

To start... remember... "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

THE VERY USEFUL NORMAL DISTRIBUTION - Many sets of data are roughly normally distributed. It is a super useful tool. I use it in my work on a regular basis and it can help predict the nature of a full data set from a smaller sample. I am not saying it is not a really great hammer. It is a most excellent hammer. But... it should be used properly.

THE SIX SIGMA MOVEMENT - In industry the normal distribution became the bible in the 1980s. Indeed, many data sets approximate a normal distribution. The math for using a normal distribution is simple and easy to apply. But, what has happened over time is that everyone assumes every data set is normal. There is a mathematical test that can be used to understand how close to normal a data set is. The problem is that no one uses it. If your data is not normal...well... then it is just a pile of numbers. You can't make any predictions. So, engineers shove all their data into a normal distribution as a matter of course. This leads to some very odd outcomes.

PREDICTING TOOL WEAR EXAMPLE - I will take one example. A hole drilling process. When you drill a hole you start with a very sharp tool and you make the tool on the high side of the tolerance. So, for a long time the tool is making holes that are to spec, but they are "on the high side". Then the tool starts to wear. The hole gets a bit smaller for a while. Then there is a point where the wear accelerates and the hole rapidly gets too small. This is the time when you change the tool. Good machinists watch the hole size and then make a simple predictive "model". They get 5000 holes at the high side, another 2000 slightly high, another 2000 on spec., 1000 below spec, 1000 at the low limit. So... change the tool at 11,000 cycles. Now.... the fucking engineers come along and plop this data into a normal distribution. This model does not account for the large number of sweet parts when the tool is sharp. A normal distribution discounts this. The normal distribution shape is just not correct. The tool wear of more like a chi distribution... but really... there is no really good distribution to use for this. It is a pattern, but a pattern that is not easily modeled. The result is that the engineer demands the tool be changed every 5000 cycles. The machinist tell the engineer to fuck himself.

IQ EXAMPLE - Everyone states that IQ is normally distributed. They say this like it a an absolute. They say the data "is normalized". The truth is that the data is simply shoved into a normal distribution. I have seen many claims about IQ data but I have never seen a study of how normal it is. There are ways to test this. How normal is it? I am very skeptical. The reason it is normalized is so that people can make some kind of claims about the data set. Using a normal distribution is a hammer that lets you make predictions.... even if they may be wrong. Jordan Peterson makes a big mistake on the IQ question. It is based on the idea that US blacks have an average IQ of 85 and that this is one standard deviation lower than the average. From this bit of data he makes claims about the IQs of blacks being normally distributed. He shows no data for this. It is just assumed along with the assumption that all IQ scores are normally distributed. Then since some study in the past stated that you need an IQ of 85 to hold down a factory job... then... half of blacks can't hold down a factory job. What a fucking stupid claim. I have meet hundreds and hundreds of blacks. When I lived at 12 mile road just north of Detroit most of the stores and streets were primarily black. I was the minority. I have never seen someone who could not do factory work. Hey Jordan... where are all these people? Do they just sit at home while their family feeds and dresses them? This is just a typical misuse of these data sets. I am not saying IQ testing has no value...but... we should deploy our magical hammer with skill.

GENDER EXAMPLE - So, maybe height is normal enough that we can make a few rough claims about height. I am sure that the tails of the distribution are totally wrong...and the tails are where everyone goes wrong. Very small changes in the actual data set make the predictions on the tails way off. The biology that sets up someone's height may be rather predictable in the center of the distribution...but the tails are defined by disease or genetic defects or poor diet or a host of non-linear event. Sure... we can force the height distribution of men and woman onto two curves and make a few claims. But... has anyone seen the normality test run on this data? I sure haven't. And finally... well... this idea that sex is some kind of bimodal normal distribution is FUCKING RETARDED. Sex is not a distribution. It just isn't STOP ALREADY.

<end rant>

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2314

Post by John D »

I will rant about blood pressure next... but I really have to get some work done first... haha.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2315

Post by fafnir »

John D wrote: I imagine that height is sort of normally distributed... but it is a broad approximation.
I suspect we can intuit it is going to be a bad one. Is the process that produces the height distribution the kind of process that would produce a normal distribution, even around the average? If we look at the height distribution for humans as a whole, we can immediately see that that isn't normal. You have two peaks because men and women are different. Are all ethnic groups genetically inclined to the same height? No? In that case it's just a less clearly defined version of the same problem you had with sex. Nutrition clearly has some impact in height.... is that the kind of random variable that is going to produce a normal distribution? That ignores the outliers like Andre the Giant and Warwick Davis who clearly don't fall on the distribution.

Height distribution is a vaguely bell shaped looking thing that we pretend is normally distributed because it makes the maths easier and we aren't that bothered about accuracy.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2316

Post by John D »

<start blood pressure rant>

Nurse in the doctor's office uses one of those automatic blood pressure machines and gets a blood pressure for me of 185/150. Ok...so... WTF. This means I am about to blow a blood vessel so hard my head should pop off. She does it again later and it goes to 180/148. Wow... shit. So then a little nurse comes in, used the manual cuff, and I get 148/78. Conclusion number one.... those fucking machines suck. My wife has an automatic cuff here at home at it is always high. She went into the doctors office after using that stupid machine getting 190 blood pressure and in the office she was under 140. Any thoughts from the pyt? I think these machines are crap.

Point number two. I have not looked into blood pressure very much. One article stated that the patient needs to place their feet firmly on the ground and should have their back supported. The doctor had my feet dangling off the exam table and my back unsupported. This can add over ten points to your blood pressure. WTF. Does my doctor always take everyone's blood pressure incorrectly?

Finally, the guidelines for blood pressure changed in 2017. They removed the adjustment for your age.... so the goal for blood pressure for an old person is the same as that for a young person.... even though almost everyone's bp rises with age. When this guideline changed the number of people with high bp rose by over 10%. MORE DRUG SALES! HOORAY!

I am not excited to start a blood pressure medication. but maybe I need to do it. I could stop drinking..... naw... I don't think so.

<end of blood pressure rant>

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2317

Post by Service Dog »

John D wrote: IQ EXAMPLE - ... The truth is that the data is simply shoved into a normal distribution.
How ironic! IQ tests measure Abstract reasoning... the ability to shove any old data into a rough semblance of a distribution pattern, which matches the desired test answer.

So, the more tenuous, flimsy, fishy the match between the IQ question data--and the 'correct answer'... then the 'Harder' the question is...
therefore the HIGHER the IQ of the person making the mental leap.

So IQ tests sort FOR the kind of person who can squint at real world data & kinda sorta see an abstract pattern in it... then trust that their own raw intelligence is a worthy competitor against any pesky reality-world data which contradicts their smart-ness.

--

I've posted about this before-- years ago. On one hand, I found Stefan Molyneaux to be refreshingly un-PC, in his grandstanding rants about race & IQ. On the other hand, his claims are very self-serving & seemed intellectually lazy-- (beyond an initial AHA! moment). Then I heard some podcast talk about the mystery of average IQ-- among certain groups-- increasing over a short period (decades). This podcast expert said that remote, traditional peoples tested lower IQ-- because the were skeptical about Abstract Generalizing.

Which is actually the smart way to think... if your life depends on concrete knowledge... such as Which Specific Mushrooms Are Poisonous/ rather than Abstract Generalizations, such as "All the the poisonous mushrooms I know are brown. All the edible ones are yellow. Here's a new mushroom which is white!" Hmm... "White is even-lighter than yellow, therefore it's further-away from poisonous, if these are a normal distribution, so I will eat it!" <--Rest In Peace.

Yeah, in the modern recent globalized world... easy money is often made, by thinking in the Abstract, treating all data as-if it was portable from one concrete situation to another. We've got a whole 'best & brightest' high IQ elite class, high-fiving each other in Business Class... to show for it.

Until real world people are dropping dead, because their Big Brain abstract pattern schemes didn't match harsh reality.

fafnir
.
.
Posts: 292
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:16 pm

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2318

Post by fafnir »

Service Dog wrote: Then I heard some podcast talk about the mystery of average IQ-- among certain groups-- increasing over a short period (decades).
There is the Flynn effect of course in there as well. Supposedly that has now reversed and IQ in the west is falling.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2319

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

A former court reporter speculates on how jury scuttlebutt could and could not have gotten out:

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/11 ... rs-n477072

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2320

Post by Service Dog »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: A former court reporter speculates on how jury scuttlebutt could and could not have gotten out:

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2021/11 ... rs-n477072
1. The author was wrong-- the alternate jurors were not dismissed.

2. Barnes reacted to the tweet-- about the jurors expressing fear of blowback from their ruling-- by saying that it's common for jurors to say this-- if they aren't confident in their ability to argue directly against other jurors who oppose their opinion. Rather than 'owning' their opinion, they may be outsourcing blame for-it, to nebulous figures outside the jury room. A passive-aggressive way to argue their unpopular opinion.

3. The author finds it hard to believe a Marshall could-have learned-about jury concerns, without some violation of propriety. But the author describes a likely scenario-- in which the jury passes a note to the bailiff, which is shared with the judge, who shares it with counsel for both sides. At that point-- I can easily see the slimy prosecutors leaking the info... intentionally trying to trigger a mistrial, since their performance was such an abortion. Or the defense legitimately seeking protection from US Marshalls. Which is hard to begrudge them as improper.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2321

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote: 1. The author was wrong-- the alternate jurors were not dismissed.
End note says article was corrected, but looks like correction never made it into the body text.
2. Barnes reacted [....] Rather than 'owning' their opinion, they may be outsourcing blame for-it, to nebulous figures outside the jury room. A passive-aggressive way to argue their unpopular opinion.
Maybe, but no sane adult could believe the defendant is guilty in this case.

3. The author finds it hard to believe a Marshall could-have learned-about jury concerns,
The scenario where a juror is overheard complaining out loud is plausible. If a Marshal is spreading the gossip, true, false, or exaggerated, then it's all over the place.
- I can easily see the slimy prosecutors leaking the info... intentionally trying to trigger a mistrial
Binger apparently has a reputation for being a sneaky shit, but also as a complete fuck-up. Anything is possible. The DA's office felt politically compelled to try this case, but never believed in the charges. A hung jury, after which everyone forgets over time about a retrial, would be perfect for them.

Whatever the true story is, I'm sure the judge is mauling a lot of folks asses this morning.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2322

Post by Service Dog »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: no sane adult could believe the defendant is guilty in this case.
I saw your reply earlier-- about Madison being woke/ but Kenosha voting for Trump.

Which is true. But I stand by my previous assessment-- that Wisconsin contains many varieties of political Left-lobe brain damage. For example, Milwaukee famously had 3 socialist mayors-- members of the Socialist Party of America serving a combined 38 years, up until 1960. There was/is a culture of working-man's-societies (like a social club/ members-only drinking establishment)... the Green Bay Packers are proudly 'socialist' (co-owned by thousands of local fan shareholders/ no single rich guy 'owner'.) Stuff like this (and much more) adds up to an ambient 'identity politics'... kinda similar to a non-practicing Catholic or Jew nonetheless having an unshakable sympathy if sides are drawn between 'us' and 'them'.

It's not 'sane', but it's commonplace. If a Wisconsin democrat juror thinks Kyle is 'a republican' shooting 'socialists', that's bad for Kyle.

We certainly know that Democrats have become flabby & inept at direct argumentation. So I can easily see such a juror defering to 'protesters' outside the jury room, rather than admit it's their-own closet-left views they're promoting.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2323

Post by John D »

My final prediction.... hung jury. It is taking way to long to be a full acquittal.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2324

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote: Wisconsin contains many varieties of political Left-lobe brain damage.
[....]

It's not 'sane', but it's commonplace. If a Wisconsin democrat juror thinks Kyle is 'a republican' shooting 'socialists', that's bad for Kyle.

We certainly know that Democrats have become flabby & inept at direct argumentation. So I can easily see such a juror defering to 'protesters' outside the jury room, rather than admit it's their-own closet-left views they're promoting.
Oh, of course. I was dismissing TFJ's worry that the jury might convict. Two brain-damaged lefties out of twelve would not be surprising at all.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2325

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: My final prediction.... hung jury. It is taking way to long to be a full acquittal.
Judge's hate hung juries, and will lean pretty hard on a jury to avoid one. But pretty much everyone but him and the defense would love one at this point.

Although an acquittal would give Joy Reid more material, and rioters a better excuse.

I'd bet on either an acquittal following the dismissal of one or more jurors, or a mistrial with prejudice. By end of day.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 7031
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Trash Island

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2326

Post by Service Dog »

John D wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:14 am
My final prediction.... hung jury. It is taking way to long to be a full acquittal.
A big chunk of today-- has been the jury requesting to re-watch video evidence/ followed by the judge & lawyers exiting to review the standard rules of

how-to show the video to the jury. Are the attorneys allowed to be present? Is the judge? How many times is the jury allowed to re-watch a vid clip?

So the jury may be waiting-for the court, at this point. With their decision 99% made... just waiting for a final glance at video.


And... the defense just-now returned & started talking about the video.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2327

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote: Is height normally distributed, or is a normal distribution a good enough approximation that it not being a normal distribution mostly doesn't matter? It seems intuitively that it wouldn't actually be normal.
Generally speaking, height is in fact a bimodal distribution. What are normal distributions - more or less - are those for males and females as separate sets of measurements. Note this Wikipedia article on multimodal distributions, the central graph of which is described as:
A simple bimodal distribution, in this case a mixture of two normal distributions with the same variance but different means.
Wikipedia_BimodalDistribution1A.jpg
(78.36 KiB) Downloaded 42 times

That is the same graph - more or less - that one would get if one mentally or arithmetically totaled the measurements for each sex. For instance, in this graph, the frequency of females at the height of 185 cm [more typical of males than of females] is about 0.005 while that for males is about 0.025 which averages out to 0.015. One might then create an average for the full range from 130 to 220 cm which I expect would give the above bimodal distribution:

Mathematica_PopHghtCompare_2A_Sctn.JPG
(29.95 KiB) Downloaded 43 times

But normal distributions are only models that may or may not accurately reflect "reality" - there are many other variations on that distribution that may be a more accurate model for example where the shapes of the curve to the left and the right of the peak are significantly different. However, if I'm not mistaken, the fundamental assumption associated with normal distributions - that all of the variables affecting the outcomes are independent - tends to be a better bet than not. Which John more or less agreed with.

But, for instance, in the rolling of dice - which seems to be a classic case of a normal distribution - if one of the dice is heavier on one side than the other then some numbers will probably be more common than other ones. Why comparing actual results with a normal distribution can often be used to determine if the dice are fair. Likewise with other distributions - if they're not normal then that indicates there are probably other factors in play, that all of the factors are not independent, that some are joined at the hip, more less.

Although, even if two population distributions are both normal - more or less - but have different means and standard deviations then that still suggests that some combinations of factors are more common than others, that they're not entirely independent. For example, consider this IQ distribution from 1932, although it's y axis (frequency) is non-standard:

IQ_Psychology_Today.gif
(45.75 KiB) Downloaded 43 times

Even though the average IQs for men and women are about equal at 105, men are more "over-represented" at both the high and low scales (IQs > 115 and IQs < 95):

However, that was in 1932 so presumably, because women generally have been granted access to better education, one might surmise that the differences have been greatly reduced. Although many, Pinker for one, have suggested that there are some biological factors that precludes reducing that difference to zero; nature versus nurture and all that:

http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/3334/pi ... gender.pdf

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17681
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2328

Post by Brive1987 »

John D wrote: <start blood pressure rant>

Nurse in the doctor's office uses one of those automatic blood pressure machines and gets a blood pressure for me of 185/150. Ok...so... WTF. This means I am about to blow a blood vessel so hard my head should pop off. She does it again later and it goes to 180/148. Wow... shit. So then a little nurse comes in, used the manual cuff, and I get 148/78. Conclusion number one.... those fucking machines suck. My wife has an automatic cuff here at home at it is always high. She went into the doctors office after using that stupid machine getting 190 blood pressure and in the office she was under 140. Any thoughts from the pyt? I think these machines are crap.

Point number two. I have not looked into blood pressure very much. One article stated that the patient needs to place their feet firmly on the ground and should have their back supported. The doctor had my feet dangling off the exam table and my back unsupported. This can add over ten points to your blood pressure. WTF. Does my doctor always take everyone's blood pressure incorrectly?

Finally, the guidelines for blood pressure changed in 2017. They removed the adjustment for your age.... so the goal for blood pressure for an old person is the same as that for a young person.... even though almost everyone's bp rises with age. When this guideline changed the number of people with high bp rose by over 10%. MORE DRUG SALES! HOORAY!

I am not excited to start a blood pressure medication. but maybe I need to do it. I could stop drinking..... naw... I don't think so.

<end of blood pressure rant>
Automatic devices are known to measure high.

Here is a good article on the 5 common causes for incorrect readings
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/medic ... JZOocufoS/

There is a known ‘white coat syndrome’ where BP at the doctors is higher than at home.

BP rises as we age because most of the US is a metabolic disaster ground - with progressive overall declines in health. Ie the increase in BP is symptomatic. In any case, 120/80 is an artificially high “normal” baseline, it reflects the average of a sick population.

Here are some excellent videos on BP and hypertension:




My protocol for home measuring is:

No coffee, food or exercise for at least an hour prior.
Take off my shirt but remain warm (ie no tight clothing).
Sit with back supported by chair, both flat feet on the ground uncrossed.
Arm resting on chair-arm in line with heart.
BP monitor hose unkinked.
Relaxing music on.

Then I take four measurements separated by at least a min or two. Typically I’ll discard the first one and average the last three. Then track over time using the same machine and protocol.



I also like to continuously monitor my resting heart rate using my fitbit. It claims a 55.

Ultimately BP is one metric in what should be a converging flow of evidence. Weight. BMI. Waist to height. Lipids. Lipid ratios. Fasting blood sugar. Three month average blood sugar. Insulin levels. Resting heart rate. Heart rate variability. Calcium score.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17681
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2329

Post by Brive1987 »

Add to that blood work markers for inflammation and liver function.
Plus some mechanism for tracking sleep quality. Again I use Fitbit.

But in short. If you consume the standard American diet, you’re fucked over time.
You may as well smoke as well - and make a party of it.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2330

Post by John D »

Brive1987 wrote: Add to that blood work markers for inflammation and liver function.
Plus some mechanism for tracking sleep quality. Again I use Fitbit.

But in short. If you consume the standard American diet, you’re fucked over time.
You may as well smoke as well - and make a party of it.
Don't like smoking... but I drink like a fish!

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2331

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: I imagine that height is sort of normally distributed... but it is a broad approximation.

<Begin rant on normal distributions>

To start... remember... "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

THE VERY USEFUL NORMAL DISTRIBUTION - Many sets of data are roughly normally distributed. It is a super useful tool. I use it in my work on a regular basis and it can help predict the nature of a full data set from a smaller sample. I am not saying it is not a really great hammer. It is a most excellent hammer. But... it should be used properly.
"approximation ... super useful tool" :clap: Progress! ;)

<snip>
John D wrote: GENDER EXAMPLE - So, maybe height is normal enough that we can make a few rough claims about height. I am sure that the tails of the distribution are totally wrong...and the tails are where everyone goes wrong. Very small changes in the actual data set make the predictions on the tails way off. The biology that sets up someone's height may be rather predictable in the center of the distribution...but the tails are defined by disease or genetic defects or poor diet or a host of non-linear event. Sure... we can force the height distribution of men and woman onto two curves and make a few claims. But... has anyone seen the normality test run on this data? I sure haven't. And finally... well... this idea that sex is some kind of bimodal normal distribution is FUCKING RETARDED. Sex is not a distribution. It just isn't STOP ALREADY.

<end rant>
"height is normal enough that we can make a few rough claims about height"
Exactly right. That the estimation may not be entirely accurate really isn't sufficient reason to throw out the concept or the tool. As Service Dog has been suggesting.
this idea that sex is some kind of bimodal normal distribution is FUCKING RETARDED. Sex is not a distribution.
Where the fuck have I said that it was? Don't think you're paying attention.

I've explicitly argued that talking about sex being a bimodal normal distribution is tantamount to asserting that sex is a spectrum. Which Matt seems to be willing to give lip service to - a closet PZer, tsk, tsk ... ;)

But for examples, both Colin Wright and Emma Hilton underline that argument:


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17681
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2332

Post by Brive1987 »

John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: Add to that blood work markers for inflammation and liver function.
Plus some mechanism for tracking sleep quality. Again I use Fitbit.

But in short. If you consume the standard American diet, you’re fucked over time.
You may as well smoke as well - and make a party of it.
Don't like smoking... but I drink like a fish!
That’s an effective coup de grâce. 👍

America is one of the few countries where the ‘healthy life span’ is actually decreasing.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2333

Post by John D »

I will not bother to reproduce all of Steer's stuff. Two points.

The curves showing IQ are clearly and obviously not normal. They are "sort of bell shaped"... but not much more than that. Look at the tails.... this is where the fun happens. The tails don't taper off... they crash. Not very normal. Not such a useful model for the tails. And in the case of people... can you even measure IQ in some people? Can you measure the IQ of someone with Downs syndrome... and if you do... what does this mean to the rest of the population. I will tell you.... it means NOTHING! The bumps in the curves tell you their are distributions within the distribution... multimodal with many factors affecting the result.

Rolling two dice is not really normal at all. It is a set of discrete possible outcomes. It is also kind of bell shaped, so people kind of think it is normal...but the tails do not exist. Imagine normalizing dice rolls. (I have done this). You sure will get a bell curve. Then you can probe the model. You can ask the model to solve for the probability of getting a "1 or less" result when rolling two dice. The model will tell you it has something like a 1% chance. This is just plain wrong. You can NEVER get a one when rolling two dice. The probability of getting a one is zero... a two is 1/36 a three is 2/36 etc. THIS IS NOT A DISTRIBUTION! It is discrete.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2334

Post by John D »

Steers.... can you read? and when you read do you read for context? How many times did I write that the normal distribution is a great tool.... a golden hammer... but one that is often abused. and then you write that I am claiming it is not a good tool. and I never claimed that you said sex was a bimodal distribution. I just stated my claim that sex is not a distribution... period. Sex IS NOT A DISTRIBUTION. Now if you agree with me that is fine. Good for you for being able to see this. I know you want to think that everything I write is targeted at you... but trust me... this is not the case.

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2335

Post by John D »

Brive1987 wrote:
John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: Add to that blood work markers for inflammation and liver function.
Plus some mechanism for tracking sleep quality. Again I use Fitbit.

But in short. If you consume the standard American diet, you’re fucked over time.
You may as well smoke as well - and make a party of it.
Don't like smoking... but I drink like a fish!
That’s an effective coup de grâce. 👍

America is one of the few countries where the ‘healthy life span’ is actually decreasing.
Long life isn't all that great.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2336

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: I will not bother to reproduce all of Steer's stuff. Two points.

The curves showing IQ are clearly and obviously not normal. They are "sort of bell shaped"... but not much more than that. Look at the tails.... this is where the fun happens. The tails don't taper off... they crash. Not very normal.
Approximations John, models. Don't think you're paying attention to what I've said.
John D wrote: Rolling two dice is not really normal at all. It is a set of discrete possible outcomes. It is also kind of bell shaped, so people kind of think it is normal...but the tails do not exist. Imagine normalizing dice rolls. (I have done this). You sure will get a bell curve. Then you can probe the model. You can ask the model to solve for the probability of getting a "1 or less" result when rolling two dice. The model will tell you it has something like a 1% chance. This is just plain wrong. You can NEVER get a one when rolling two dice. The probability of getting a one is zero... a two is 1/36 a three is 2/36 etc. THIS IS NOT A DISTRIBUTION! It is discrete.
Where the fuck am I disagreeing with you? You might try paying a bit more attention to what I'm saying. Instead of going off half-cocked, instead of pulling the trigger before your "gun" has cleared the holster - just shooting yourself in the feet.

Consider:
Rolling dice is a discrete distribution, while the normal distribution, AKA the Gaussian distribution, is continuous by definition. The distribution is technically binomial, which approximates the normal distribution as n gets large.
https://newbedev.com/is-rolling-a-dice- ... stribution

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2337

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
<snip>

America is one of the few countries where the ‘healthy life span’ is actually decreasing.
Long life isn't all that great.
By all means marry. If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. Socrates
;)

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17681
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2338

Post by Brive1987 »

John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
John D wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: Add to that blood work markers for inflammation and liver function.
Plus some mechanism for tracking sleep quality. Again I use Fitbit.

But in short. If you consume the standard American diet, you’re fucked over time.
You may as well smoke as well - and make a party of it.
Don't like smoking... but I drink like a fish!
That’s an effective coup de grâce. 👍

America is one of the few countries where the ‘healthy life span’ is actually decreasing.
Long life isn't all that great.
True. But ensuring the life you do live is marked by health rather than chronic illness is a worthy qualitative goal. USA life span is increasing. It’s healthy life span is decreasing. There’s no positive spin on that.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10369
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2339

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: Steers.... can you read? and when you read do you read for context? How many times did I write that the normal distribution is a great tool.... a golden hammer... but one that is often abused.
FFS, I've agreed with you:
"height is normal enough that we can make a few rough claims about height"

Exactly right. That the estimation may not be entirely accurate really isn't sufficient reason to throw out the concept or the tool. As Service Dog has been suggesting.
You want me to underline that?
John D wrote: and then you write that I am claiming it is not a good tool.
Didn't say that at all. I said that Service Dog was suggesting that.
John D wrote: and I never claimed that you said sex was a bimodal distribution. I just stated my claim that sex is not a distribution... period. Sex IS NOT A DISTRIBUTION. Now if you agree with me that is fine. Good for you for being able to see this. I know you want to think that everything I write is targeted at you... but trust me... this is not the case.
No "if" to that agreement - I've explicitly said that "Sex is NOT A DISTRIBUTION". You want me to underline that too? Big red letters? Flashing neon?

GMAB John - try reading & thinking about what I've said before pulling the trigger, before going off half-cocked; your blood-pressure will thank you ... ;)

John D
.
.
Posts: 5356
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:23 am
Location: Detroit, MI. USA

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2340

Post by John D »

Was Socrates married?... and if he was married to Steers would he be a philosopher?

One should never use a normal distribution to prove the fairness of dice. There are better statistical tests for this. This is an example of my point. That someone would use a normal distribution to prove the fairness of a pair of dice is using the wrong hammer.

And has anyone seen actual large sample IQ data and tested it for normalcy? It doesn't look very normal to me. And how do these IQ testers get their population? So many questions.... so much bullshit.

Hmmm... anyway... most of may rants are just rants. Please ignore if you are so inclined.

Brive - do you take you own bp and if you do how do you do it? Do you use a machine or are you able to use a manual cuff? My life is in the balance!

Post Reply