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...

#2341

Post by John D »

Steer's if I have a stroke right now I will blame you! (or Matt for tricking me into reading that shitty Collapse book)!

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2342

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: Was Socrates married?... and if he was married to Steers would he be a philosopher?
:)
John D wrote: 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.
Ok; I stand corrected - more or less ... ;)
John D wrote: 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.

<snip>
Kinda think you're missing the point. That some samples are not perfectly normal does not mean that the whole population is likewise not normal - sampling theorems and all that:

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

But that the samples - for say men's and women's heights or IQs - may be distorted or not be perfectly symmetrical like normal distributions does not mean that they are no longer useful or valuable. As you've more or less agreed.

If the shapes of those distributions are "wonky" does not mean that one can't infer useful arguments based on where the averages are and what the nominal standard deviations are - at least as long as one takes the "conclusions" with a grain or two of salt. Though not too many of those - blood pressure and all that ... ;)

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2343

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: 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.
How much more or less? I go back to John D's statement. The curve isn't normal, it's "sort of bell shaped". Often we care so little about accuracy that we call "sort of bell shaped" normal and act as if it was, but it isn't normal.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2344

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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.
How much more or less? I go back to John D's statement. The curve isn't normal, it's "sort of bell shaped". Often we care so little about accuracy that we call "sort of bell shaped" normal and act as if it was, but it isn't normal.
Generally speaking, it doesn't greatly matter that "the curve isn't normal". As long as it has the rough shape of normality - as is clearly the case for IQs and heights and many other physical and psychological traits ["gender"] - one can still make useful inferences. For example, the "agreeableness" of men versus women:


Definitely not normal distributions, but one can still see that, on average (the peaks) women have a higher "agreeableness" score than men.

But that's the whole principle behind sampling - we can't possibly measure everyone's heights, weights, IQs, and agreeableness; we have to take a sample - the bigger the sample, the more random the selection, the more likely that the sample will accurately reflect the population. See:
Sampling distributions are important in statistics because they provide a major simplification en route to statistical inference. More specifically, they allow analytical considerations to be based on the probability distribution of a statistic, rather than on the joint probability distribution of all the individual sample values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distribution

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2345

Post by John D »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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.
How much more or less? I go back to John D's statement. The curve isn't normal, it's "sort of bell shaped". Often we care so little about accuracy that we call "sort of bell shaped" normal and act as if it was, but it isn't normal.
Generally speaking, it doesn't greatly matter that "the curve isn't normal". As long as it has the rough shape of normality - as is clearly the case for IQs and heights and many other physical and psychological traits ["gender"] - one can still make useful inferences. For example, the "agreeableness" of men versus women:


PMC_Frontiers_Weisberg_DeYoung_Hirsh_GenderDiffs2B.jpg


Definitely not normal distributions, but one can still see that, on average (the peaks) women have a higher "agreeableness" score than men.

But that's the whole principle behind sampling - we can't possibly measure everyone's heights, weights, IQs, and agreeableness; we have to take a sample - the bigger the sample, the more random the selection, the more likely that the sample will accurately reflect the population. See:
Sampling distributions are important in statistics because they provide a major simplification en route to statistical inference. More specifically, they allow analytical considerations to be based on the probability distribution of a statistic, rather than on the joint probability distribution of all the individual sample values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_distribution
Steers - my friend

You just proved my point. You can make many conclusions from these graphs. But, I would argue that claiming they are normal will cause more harm than good. Look at the left tail. It drifts for about .8 points. The tail on the right drops quickly... especially for females. Normalizing this data wouldn't help in many cases. Now... you could claim the average is different.... you don't need to normalized the data for that. But to put a standard deviation on this. well... I don't even know what it would help with. And part of the problem is the discrete nature of this data. It can't be normal. You can never have a score over 5... right? Even this graph suggests you can go over 5.... but I suspect that is an error in the plot. I doubt this is even a plot of the raw data. What in the fuck is this really?

I am not trying to be pedantic.... but this has the risk of really misrepresenting this data set. Can you score more than 5? If not... you should try to avoid a normal distribution model. The tails are fucked.

I don't know. I guess... I am just tired of smart people making everything they work with normal.... and then making some fucked up claim (especially about the tails). IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2346

Post by John D »

The Sherman was the best tank in WWII!

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2347

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: The Sherman was the best tank in WWII!
https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/bitst ... sAllowed=y

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2348

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

No verdict today. Jury back in the morning.

Dunno how long Schroeder will let this play out, cuz there will be no verdict ever.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2349

Post by John D »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: No verdict today. Jury back in the morning.

Dunno how long Schroeder will let this play out, cuz there will be no verdict ever.
hung.... hung... hung

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2350

Post by Brive1987 »

John D wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:26 pm
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!
BP is just one variable I monitor. I’m not going to grapple with bulbs and stethoscopes. I use a cuff and machine.

Given the variables and skill levels required, I suspect objective truth with be elusive regardless of which approach you adopt. So I’d go for automatic. The proper cuff size. A fixed and appropriate protocol - method and time of day. Regular recorded readings and then average results while looking for trends.

Waist to height is an easier red flag marker. Lie on your back and measure your waist just above your belly button. You want the waist:height ratio to be <0.5. >0.6 and you are ☠️ Regardless, a 40 inch waist is a bell toll.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2351

Post by John D »

5 foot 9" (69 inches) and a 40 inch waist. So.... .57. Marginally dead. Maybe I will take up smoking.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2352

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: 5 foot 9" (69 inches) and a 40 inch waist. So.... .57. Marginally dead. Maybe I will take up smoking.
Anything to get away from the wife, eh? ;)

Somewhat apropos of which, you in particular might enjoy - or at least take some comfort from the fact that you're not alone - Philip Wylie's Generation of Vipers, particularly chapter 11 on Uncommon Women, the opening paragraphs in particular:
MOM IS THE END PRODUCT OF SHE. She is Cinderella, the creature I discussed earlier, the shining-haired, the starry-eyed, the ruby-lipped virgo aeternis, of which there is presumably one, and only one, or a one-and-only for each male, whose dream is fixed upon her deflowerment and subsequent perpetual possession. This act is a sacrament in all churches and a civil affair in our society. The collective aspects of marriage are thus largely compressed into the rituals and social perquisites of one day. Unless some element of mayhem or intention of divorce subsequently obtrudes, a sort of privacy engulfs the union and all further developments are deemed to be the business of each separate pair, including the transition of Cinderella into mom, which, if it occasions any shock, only adds to the huge, invisible burthen every man carries with him into eternity. It is the weight of this bundle which, incidentally, squeezes out of him the wish for death, his last positive biological resource.
https://vultureofcritique.files.wordpre ... vipers.pdf

Probably worth more of your time than any further recommendations from Matt ... ;)

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2353

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:25 am
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.
The list of prosecution infractions is growing. Latest rumour is that Jump Kick tried to get existing charges dropped in exchange for testifying, which would be very inconvenient if proven true because the prosecution deny knowing his identity. Judge should have knocked proceedings on the head with the right to silence violation so I don't see how he can honestly deny an updated motion. My current theory is that Little Binger bet the farm with an eye on the DA spot and a future in Democrat politics. I can't explain the rotund sidekick's suicide attempt though.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2354

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: hung.... hung... hung
That's what she said.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2355

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Latest rumour is that Jump Kick tried to get existing charges dropped in exchange for testifying, which would be very inconvenient if proven true because the prosecution deny knowing his identity.
Source?
:popcorn:
My current theory is that Little Binger bet the farm with an eye on the DA spot and a future in Democrat politics. I can't explain the rotund sidekick's suicide attempt though.
Binger ran for DA a few years ago in Racist Racine County next door, as a Dem, and lost. He flailed for a while in private practice before joining Kenosha DA office just a few months before Kyle was charged. Kraus seems to have worked there for ever.

The DA, who often takes slam-dunk cases for the publicity, decided to pass on this one and, out of fifteen ADAs, hand it to Laurel and Hardy instead.

Binger should be disbarred, but in any case, has a solid future career as a legal expert on CNN.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2356

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote:
Steersman wrote: <snip>
Generally speaking, it doesn't greatly matter that "the curve isn't normal". As long as it has the rough shape of normality - as is clearly the case for IQs and heights and many other physical and psychological traits ["gender"] - one can still make useful inferences. For example, the "agreeableness" of men versus women:


PMC_Frontiers_Weisberg_DeYoung_Hirsh_GenderDiffs2B.jpg


Definitely not normal distributions, but one can still see that, on average (the peaks) women have a higher "agreeableness" score than men.

<snip>
Steers - my friend

You just proved my point. You can make many conclusions from these graphs.
How so? Which graphs? This one?


You might try being a bit more specific in your arguments as to what you're referring to.
John D wrote: But, I would argue that claiming they are normal will cause more harm than good.
Where the fuck have I said that that one is a normal distribution? All I've said is that it's a close approximation to a normal distribution and that, as is typical with sampling distributions, one can still make useful inferences from such samples.
John D wrote: Look at the left tail. It drifts for about .8 points. The tail on the right drops quickly... especially for females.
So fucking what? Is it true or not that the averages - the peaks - suggest that females are, on average, more agreeable than men? That that particular sample justifies concluding that there are more men - in that sample - with low agreeableness (between 2 and 4) than there are women? That, in that sample, there are more women in the high agreeableness range (between 4 and 5) than there are men?

Assuming that that sample is a reasonably accurate snapshot of the whole population, does it not justify pretty much the same conclusions for that whole population? To a 95% confidence level?
John D wrote: Normalizing this data wouldn't help in many cases. Now... you could claim the average is different.... you don't need to normalized the data for that. But to put a standard deviation on this. well... I don't even know what it would help with. And part of the problem is the discrete nature of this data. It can't be normal. You can never have a score over 5... right? Even this graph suggests you can go over 5.... but I suspect that is an error in the plot. I doubt this is even a plot of the raw data. What in the fuck is this really?
"normalizing" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "normal distribution":
Normalize; mathematics: multiply (a series, function or item of data) by a factor that makes the norm or some associated quantity such as an integral equal to a desired value (usually 1).

"both sets of data have been normalized such that the lowest value is equal to 1"
You're either being sloppy or you don't understand the difference; nobody is trying to "normalize" that data. All that is being attempted is to infer something about the two populations being considered. Is the average, for the sample, for females higher than for males? Is it likely or not that the entire population will show pretty much the same distribution and means?
John D wrote: I am not trying to be pedantic.... but this has the risk of really misrepresenting this data set. Can you score more than 5? If not... you should try to avoid a normal distribution model. The tails are fucked.

I don't know. I guess... I am just tired of smart people making everything they work with normal.... and then making some fucked up claim (especially about the tails). IT MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!
You're really not succeeding very well at not being pedantic. Or you really don't understand the statistics or their applications to "psychometrics" or even various physiological traits as well as you think you do.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2357

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Well, this trial has become a complete clusterfuck, and the judge needs to put it out of its misery:
The judge … suggested the possibility of putting the prosecution on the witness stand themselves to testify under oath as to how this video mix-up occurred.

Interestingly, a photo purportedly of ADA Kraus’ laptop screen being projected onto the large 4k TV screen in the courtroom shows the presence of an imaging software named Handbrake. I lack any technical expertise or experience with Handbrake software, but apparently, a core purpose is to generate low-definition versions of high-definition videos.  This has led to speculation that the provision of the low-resolution video to the defense was not an accident at all, but rather an intentional act of the prosecution.  If so, this would be prosecutorial misconduct sufficiently grievous to not only warrant a mistrial with prejudice but certainly misconduct perhaps even malicious prosecution charges.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/r ... liberates/

Looks like the app asks you to select resolution when converting. Whether intentional or just another in a long line of fuckups, it's fatal. Cuz the state's case rests solely on provocation, proved solely by that video.


Amendment VI wrote:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... be confronted with the witnesses against him....
Game over, man. Game over.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2358

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote: 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.
Nope. I am saying the tool is defective... in exactly the way John said it was.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2359

Post by Service Dog »

Brive1987 wrote: My protocol for home measuring is:
I'd be curious to know-- how much variance you get if you intentionally do it 'wrong'.

Like-- take your bp while flat in bed. Or right after 2 cups of coffee.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2360

Post by John D »

Jesus fucking christ.... my daughter just told me she can't make her RV payments (the RV I am cosigned for).... and wants me to pay the next two $800 payments. This is the daughter that one year ago told me she would rather sell herself on the street than ask for help. God damn. What a fucking week.

PS - Steers... I am done talk to you about the normal distribution.... just done man.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2361

Post by Service Dog »

John D wrote: the RV I am cosigned for
Hard-hearted response... not necessarily literal advice... just attempting to commiserate:

sell the fancy van, get out of your co-sign obligation. Buy her a shitty replacement van.

https://detroit.craigslist.org/wyn/cto/ ... 57045.html

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2362

Post by Service Dog »


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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2363

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

John D wrote: Jesus fucking christ.... my daughter just told me she can't make her RV payments (the RV I am cosigned for).... and wants me to pay the next two $800 payments. This is the daughter that one year ago told me she would rather sell herself on the street than ask for help. God damn. What a fucking week.
This may be a bit outside-of-the-box, but have you considered pimping her out until it's paid off?

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2364

Post by Steersman »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
John D wrote: Jesus fucking christ.... my daughter just told me she can't make her RV payments (the RV I am cosigned for).... and wants me to pay the next two $800 payments. This is the daughter that one year ago told me she would rather sell herself on the street than ask for help. God damn. What a fucking week.
This may be a bit outside-of-the-box, but have you considered pimping her out until it's paid off?
:) I was thinking of something along the same line, of even "honouring her offer" - so to speak - if it weren't for the distance at least ... ;)

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2365

Post by Steersman »

John D wrote: Jesus fucking christ.... my daughter just told me she can't make her RV payments (the RV I am cosigned for).... and wants me to pay the next two $800 payments. This is the daughter that one year ago told me she would rather sell herself on the street than ask for help. God damn. What a fucking week.
Sad to see. But think you need to take up meditation or something - you look to be going around in ever diminishing circles.
John D wrote: PS - Steers... I am done talk to you about the normal distribution.... just done man.
When you're up to your ass in alligators it's often rather difficult to think rationally about much of anything. Much less that one DID set out to drain the swamp ... ;)

But don't think you're really paying attention to what I've said - even if for understandable reasons. Try focusing on what I've said and try answering my questions. Socratic dialogs and all that ... :)

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2366

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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.
Nope. I am saying the tool is defective... in exactly the way John said it was.
Seems to me that John is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or wants to have his cake and eat it too. He has clearly and unambigously asserted the general usefulness of "the tool":
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.
However, he seems rather reluctant to even consider that there are significant differences - on average - between men and women, not just physiological but psychological as well. Which even Fafnir accepts:
fafnir wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:42 pm
Steersman wrote:
<snip>

But I'll more or less readily agree with you about "linguistic games". But that does not mean that there isn't some value in the concept of gender as personalities and the stereotypes which are derived from them. Why there's some value in trying to define the term as accurately as possible, why there's some value in clearly differentiating between the biological and the psychological.
It isn't a question of denying that males and females have, on average, psychological differences. That's obvious and sane people have known it since the dawn of time. ....
Do you yourself accept those differences - on average - or not? Try thinking about the "joint probability distributions" I've provided for both heights and "agreeableness"; let me know if you need some assistance to get over those hurdles ... ;)

But they're really not all that difficult if you give them a bit of thought.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2367

Post by Service Dog »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 2:54 pm
But I wasn't paying much attention to the testimony, cuz she was absolutely gorgeous.
https://media.patriots.win/post/lYAaaB9O.jpeg

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2368

Post by Service Dog »

Went out to dinner tonight, just a few blocks from home. A rarity. GF cooks.

The only 'point' contained in the rest of this post... is that I spent an evening with some people who would gladly lock up Kyle & throw away the key.

I walked past 2 new stores dedicated to selling pricey graffiti spraypaint cans. (Two!)

Also store-after-store now sells marijuana products. Krappy florescent decor-- like a Tallahassee boardwalk, or stripmall piercing shop.

--
We started at two bars-- no vax check. Nor at the restaurant. Waiters wore masks, bartenders didn't. A few young dork diners waiting at their tables did wear 'em.
--

One bartender-- who I know a little & have worked-with on Production jobs... was wearing a baseball cap backward. I thought he looked like Rittenhouse & I jokingly said-so. He got kinda flustered/angry & quickly turned the hat forward. I didn't order a drink & walked-away... which confused a couple of pro-Kyle drinkers at the bar. They thought I was anti-Kyle & had stormed-away from the bar without ordering... because I didn't like the bartender's resemblance!
--
Our party was 2 couples-- ages spanning mid-30's to over 50, & plus one 56 year old gay guy who works in fashion... adopted as a refugee baby from Vietnam, for what it's worth.

The restaurant serves creole seafood. We had the 'feast' which is a heap of crab parts, shrimp, potatoes, corn on the cob, clams... in a goopy spicy cajun sauce-- all dumped directly on the paper tablecloth.


--

As we grew full of food-- and kinda tired of fighting-open shellfish-- Rittenhouse came-up again as a conversation topic. The gay 'Nam guy is a huge football fan (and, I suspect, gambling addict.) He gets anxious & superstitious on game day. I said I felt like that watching the trial. He was VERY uncomfortable with the topic, and forcefully urged us not to talk about that.

I shut up. The other 3 at the table agreed to not talk about it... but they were the ones who immediately spewed their opinions in a shapeless jumble.
The loudest chick had surgery recently, so she sits at home on painkillers... crocheting & watching The View. Her politics are, like, normie heavy drinker people in a crowded bar talking loud. Whatever they'd say, you'll hear out of her:

She says Kyle crossed state lines with a rifle he was too young to have, looking for trouble. She said the rifle was 'sawed-off', but was sawed-off 2 inches too long... so he couldn't be charged for sawing it off. She said the skateboard didn't really hit Kyle. What else? The gay guy thinks Gaige Grosskreutz is 'hot'. Oh-- and that first chick thinks Kyle was faking crying.

That seemed like a non-confrontational point to quibble... so I said he was under a lot of stress & facing life in prison without parole... one can question his remorse... but I think you're wildly wrong... if you think he isn't really upset. Her & her mate think the judge is biased toward Kyle... and "if a black guy had shot those people, then he'd be convicted." I mentioned that one recent black kid school shooter who was released in 48 hours. Mate didn't understand I wasn't being hypothetical... I was talking about an actual case. He got huffy... "I haven't heard of that case. Stay on topic, we're not talking about that. We're talking about this case." Yeah, dude, except you invoked a hypothetical black comparision. soooo.

Gay guy made a big show of going outside to smoke... trying to kill the discussion. GF went with him. First chick expounded her theory of the case. She didn't really stop to breathe, or let me reply, and she wasn't really interested in hearing what I had to say-- when I did assert myself. So I shrugged & just prompted her to keep rattling-off her opinions. Mate got kinda mad at her for talking on&on, but after he shut her up... he started monologue-ing. I don't know why they both want to see Kyle punished so badly. I don't know if they know, either. Mate has been arrested several times. The chicks is no stranger to juvenile lawbreaking. But... she's kinda weird & crazy. Like... a pathological liar? Definitely a 'pathological talker' and the lies may just be a side-effect of the endless blather. Not enough truth available to supply her with words, so she talks on past the truth, full speed ahead.

Then someone notice a cockroach on the wallpaper, high above us. Loud chick made a big fuss. Wanted to complain to the restaurant. Lots of talk, but nobody did anything. So I stood up, walked around the table, killed the thing. Chick was complaining to bartender. Bartender said 'this is the lower east side. Unfortunately, there will be cockroaches here.' She took umbrage at that... she want to both 1.) Get credit her for her also being a bartender in the neighborhood-- who is hip & in-the-know about what he's sayin'. But also 2.) complain to the restaurant manager that the bartender shouldn't have said such a thing... it was 'inappropriate' somehow. She haggled $35 off our tab, I think? Embarassing. Then she made a big confusion of splitting up our meal tab. When her mate offered to pick-up the tab for all... she vetoed him. Then, immediately, gay guy offered his credit card... and she mistook that for him offering to pick-up everyone's tab. Nope. We were supposed to pay $90 each. I knew when I offered five Twenty Dollar Bills... that I'd not get any change/ and she'd subtract my excess from her tab. Rather than gay guy paying his $90... and her plus hubby paying $90 EACH... $180 total... she accidentally-on-purpose instructed the waiter to split the remainder 50/50 between hubby's card & gay guy. $130 each. She paid zero. As we all exited... she lagged behind & got into another pointless complaint session with the staff about the cockroach.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2369

Post by Brive1987 »

John D wrote: 5 foot 9" (69 inches) and a 40 inch waist. So.... .57. Marginally dead. Maybe I will take up smoking.
Hmm 2 out of the required 3 for a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome.
https://www.healthline.com/health/metabolic-syndrome

increased blood pressure (greater than 130/85 mmHg)
high blood sugar levels (insulin resistance)
excess fat around the waist
high triglyceride levels
low levels of good cholesterol, or HDL

Maybe time for a blood check and the utter rejection of the western big food ‘diet’? Last thing you want looming down the track is blindness or amputation. 🤷‍♂️

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2370

Post by Brive1987 »

Service Dog wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: My protocol for home measuring is:
I'd be curious to know-- how much variance you get if you intentionally do it 'wrong'.

Like-- take your bp while flat in bed. Or right after 2 cups of coffee.
“More than if you did it properly. Less than if you just did a 5 mile run”

This may not be a helpful response.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2371

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote:
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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.
How much more or less? I go back to John D's statement. The curve isn't normal, it's "sort of bell shaped". Often we care so little about accuracy that we call "sort of bell shaped" normal and act as if it was, but it isn't normal.
Generally speaking, it doesn't greatly matter that "the curve isn't normal". As long as it has the rough shape of normality - as is clearly the case for IQs and heights and many other physical and psychological traits ["gender"] - one can still make useful inferences. For example, the "agreeableness" of men versus women:


PMC_Frontiers_Weisberg_DeYoung_Hirsh_GenderDiffs2B.jpg


Definitely not normal distributions, but one can still see that, on average (the peaks) women have a higher "agreeableness" score than men.
What has being able to make inferences based on the shape of the curve got to do with justifying pretending it's normally distributed?

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2372

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: Do you yourself accept those differences - on average - or not? Try thinking about the "joint probability distributions" I've provided for both heights and "agreeableness"; let me know if you need some assistance to get over those hurdles ... ;)
As we both know, they almost certainly count the infertile in the data, and so clumsily include them in those graphs. The data is therefore hopelessly compromised.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2373

Post by Service Dog »

Brive1987 wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
I'd be curious to know-- how much variance you get if you intentionally do it 'wrong'.

Like-- take your bp while flat in bed. Or right after 2 cups of coffee.
“More than if you did it properly. Less than if you just did a 5 mile run”

This may not be a helpful response.
It is helpful... it moves my thinking forward a couple babysteps. But it's not helpful-enough to quench my curiosity.

So now you gotta drink a pot of coffee, run 5 miles, then pepper-spray yourself in the face, & measure your bp while wanking-off with a belt around your neck.

(or heck... just walk 5 miles from your house/ let the cops pepper spray you/ then chase you back home.)

You're the healthiest guy we got here. So whatever numbers you report... as long as the rest of us stay under-that... while sitting around doing nothing & nibbling bon-bons...

we should be fine.

Right?

science.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2374

Post by Service Dog »

I slept well last night, until the last phase before waking-- which felt like a Zoom call with a half-dozen 'experts' all talking at once, none discernible. (like a bad moment of the Rekeita livestream, I suppose.)

The moment I regained consciousness, I opened my eyes, my head was quiet & a complete thought popped-into my head.

When I birth fully-formed Athena brain-children, I trust that my unconscious mind did good work.

The thought-- was a rebuttal to the dumb conventional-wisdom regarding Rittenhouse... (as described in my rambling description of that meal last night.)

When someone says Kyle was "underage/crossed state lines/ carried an illegal gun/ thought he was Rambo" etc.

An effective angle of rebuttal-- is to tell that person an even more absurd version of the story:

Kyle went out that night trying to be an active shooter mass murderer. His goal was to shoot 30 people... and hit 30 or 60 more-- with the special bullets designed to pass thru as many people as possible... loaded in his fully-automatic sawed-off machine gun. The reason he went nuts & started killing people, was because he had played a videogame: "Call Of Duty". He was part of a white supremacist militia and they were all out there that night, also killing people with 30 rounds of ammo each. The police saw him kill everybody and just let him go. Everybody he shot was just minding their own business and dindu nuffin. Kyle didn't even know the guy who was chasing Kyle with a t-shirt wrapped to cover his face... was the same guy yelling "Nigger" before. Kyle had no way of knowing that guy was a threat. When the guy ran at him, Kyle should have fired several warning shots, then put his gun on the ground & raised his fists. After he killed that guy, Kyle kept pumping more unnecessary bullets into his lifeless body. After shooting the first guy, any reasonable, decent person would have taken off their rifle & left it on the ground & knelt down & started administering first aid.

This wasn't even Kyle's first mass shooting: he shot several shoplifters at a pharmacy-- with the same gun-- in a previous incident/ captured on video/ which the prosecutors wanted to show in court/ but the white supremacist judge stopped him. Kyle killed all those people because Trump told him to. And Joe Biden & CNN new about it-- and tried to warn everybody about the big bad white supremacist teenager... on TV every night. And almost-all the people on the jury are white, and they are racist white supremacists, too. And Jacob Blake was unarmed & did nothing wrong. He was minding his own business when he was killed in cold blood by racist white cops, just like the guys minding their own business when Kyle killed them. And this happens every day in every city and black people can't leave their homes without being shot by racist whites.


If, at some point, the other person admits all-this is an absurd distortion of reality... then they've admitted the actual case being used to throw a 17 year old in prison for life without parole... is not fair.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2375

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Bari Weiss concisely debunks the anti-Kyle propaganda point by point:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-me ... _oVW4To5_Y

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2376

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

The problem is getting the cultists on the left to even stop and listen for a moment.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2377

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Zuckerberg certainly doesn't want any intellectual cross-pollination to occur:

kyle gets zucked.png
(71.75 KiB) Downloaded 86 times

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2378

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

The 'hero' Jump Kick Man: YA career criminal and domestic abuser:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ealed.html

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2379

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 8:52 am
The 'hero' Jump Kick Man: YA career criminal and domestic abuser:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ealed.html
You found a source then. I'd forgotten where I heard the rumours.

Was listening to Barnes give his opinion on the real story of this case and his opinion is that KR's attackers were criminal scum taking advantage of a protest/riot and they actually conspired together to trap and kill him. The prosecution did their best to prevent any hint of this coming out by keeping some of the conspirators out of the trial.

I'm not sure who the most evil scumbag involved is. Rosenbaum was a clearly disturbed nutbar but Huber was either a wannabe tough guy or an actual psycho judging by some of the threats he is purported to have made against family. Joy Reid and Scarborough are front runners for the peripheral scumbag title. Reid is either genuinely demented or the most cynical attention baiter around. Not normally given to wanting to physically attack women but Reid in full flow triggers that urge. Not even Behar can do that.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2380

Post by Service Dog »


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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2381

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Do you yourself accept those differences - on average - or not? Try thinking about the "joint probability distributions" I've provided for both heights and "agreeableness"; let me know if you need some assistance to get over those hurdles ... ;)
As we both know, they almost certainly count the infertile in the data, and so clumsily include them in those graphs. The data is therefore hopelessly compromised.
You're grabbing at straws; you're a better man than that - Gunga Din ;)

But more particularly, so what if they've included the infertile? The data is still relevant to questions about differences between XXers and XYers, categories which in fact cover about 98% of the population. "female" and "male" are therefore just nominal though not very accurate proxies for the karyotype categories.

"hopelessly compromised" looks rather like having your thumbs - to the elbows - on the scales.

But this earlier comment of yours is likewise grabbing at straws and exhibiting egregious bias:
What has being able to make inferences based on the shape of the curve got to do with justifying pretending it's normally distributed?
FFS, I'm not "pretending those curves (& distributions) are normally distributed". I'm saying that they're a sufficiently close approximation to normal distributions to make reasonable inferences about the entire populations. There ARE some reasons for measuring populations, although some are maybe questionable or the results are put to unjustified ends or untenable objectives.

But I'm really not saying much that is different from what John D. is saying - at least in his more intellectually honest moments such as this:
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.
Note the "roughly normally distributed", "broad approximation", "predict the nature of a full data set", "excellent hammer", and "should be used properly". But you can't really say whether someone is using that tool properly, whether someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes - lies, damned lies, and statistics - if you don't understand anything about the process or anything about the reasons behind it.

And one feature of sampling from a population that exhibits a normal distribution is that even if the sample is a bit wonky, it's still likely to be a fairly accurate representation - "95% confidence level" is typical terminology - and that other samples are likely to be closer to what is typical of the population - regression to the mean it's called:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressio ... d_the_mean

You and Service Dog, the latter in particular, remind me of the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students" of various Women Studies programs that were the subject of the book Professing Feminism:

https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/20 ... inism-noh/

And of a quip, often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, that "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2382

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Schroeder just kicked MSNBC out of the courtroom. Seems one of their 'reporters' was stalking and trying to film the jury last night.

The Ziminskis and Rosenbaum were def working in concert that night, which is why Binger never called the Ziminskis.

The tucked flying jump that JKM did is taught by antifa. I wouldn't be at all surprised if all of those scumbags knew each other from prior Sonderaktione.

Joy Reid is a monster. She's worse than Goebbels. At least Goebbels loved his country.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2383

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: FFS, I'm not "pretending those curves (& distributions) are normally distributed". I'm saying that they're a sufficiently close approximation to normal distributions to make reasonable inferences about the entire populations. There ARE some reasons for measuring populations, although some are maybe questionable or the results are put to unjustified ends or untenable objectives.
I haven't seen you make any inferences that have anything to do with the distribution being normal, or approximately normal. I think you should chuck out the whole normal claim. All you want to say is covered by things that can simply be observed from the distribution curves.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2384

Post by Brive1987 »

Service Dog wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
I'd be curious to know-- how much variance you get if you intentionally do it 'wrong'.

Like-- take your bp while flat in bed. Or right after 2 cups of coffee.
“More than if you did it properly. Less than if you just did a 5 mile run”

This may not be a helpful response.
It is helpful... it moves my thinking forward a couple babysteps. But it's not helpful-enough to quench my curiosity.

So now you gotta drink a pot of coffee, run 5 miles, then pepper-spray yourself in the face, & measure your bp while wanking-off with a belt around your neck.

(or heck... just walk 5 miles from your house/ let the cops pepper spray you/ then chase you back home.)

You're the healthiest guy we got here. So whatever numbers you report... as long as the rest of us stay under-that... while sitting around doing nothing & nibbling bon-bons...

we should be fine.

Right?

science.
Oh. If I knew a belt wank was required then I’d have found some spoons.

Alas, given my age and the trajectory I was on in 2019, I doubt very much I’m the healthiest person here.

I am confident however that I’ve spent more time over the past couple of years immersed in the various discussions. 🤷‍♂️ For what that’s worth.

It pretty much all boils down to eat whole-food - especially animal based. Avoid SAD. Exercise. And don’t fret over the mechanistic arguments. The science is … bunk. It is useful to find KPIs to measure baseline and progress.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2385

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: FFS, I'm not "pretending those curves (& distributions) are normally distributed". I'm saying that they're a sufficiently close approximation to normal distributions to make reasonable inferences about the entire populations. There ARE some reasons for measuring populations, although some are maybe questionable or the results are put to unjustified ends or untenable objectives.
I haven't seen you make any inferences that have anything to do with the distribution being normal, or approximately normal. I think you should chuck out the whole normal claim. All you want to say is covered by things that can simply be observed from the distribution curves.
The only thing you would apparently allow me to say is that the distribution curves describe only the samples on which they're based. But the whole point of sampling is to be able to make inferences about the whole population:
In statistics, quality assurance, and survey methodology, sampling is the selection of a subset (a statistical sample) of individuals from within a statistical population to estimate characteristics of the whole population. Statisticians attempt to collect samples that are representative of the population in question. Sampling has lower costs and faster data collection than measuring the entire population and can provide insights in cases where it is infeasible to sample an entire population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

And if the sample is more or less normal then there's a higher probability that the whole population is likewise. And if that is the case then we can infer - to a relatively high degree of probability - that the population mean and standard deviation will be close to that for the sample:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_di ... _inference

Which tends to be of a great deal of value. Which you apparently wish to deny or ignore. For your own "political purposes"?

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2386

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: The only thing you would apparently allow me to say is that the distribution curves describe only the samples on which they're based.
Nonsense. You were talking about where the peaks were, what shape the distributions were, that the distribution for the men's heights was to the right of the women's. I'm not trying to restrict you. I'm telling you that nothing you said about the distribution curves requires you to claim they are normal. I don't know why it keeps being claimed.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2387

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote: You and Service Dog, the latter in particular, remind me of the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students" of various Women Studies programs that were the subject of the book Professing Feminism:

https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/20 ... inism-noh/
In what way do I, in particular, resemble the virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors staff & students of various Women's Studies programs?

Your claim is impossible to evaluate or heed, because you haven't actually stated it.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2388

Post by Service Dog »


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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2389

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: The only thing you would apparently allow me to say is that the distribution curves describe only the samples on which they're based.
Nonsense. You were talking about where the peaks were, what shape the distributions were, that the distribution for the men's heights was to the right of the women's. I'm not trying to restrict you. I'm telling you that nothing you said about the distribution curves requires you to claim they are normal. I don't know why it keeps being claimed.
Do you understand what it means to say that a distribution curve is normal?

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

It has a particular equation that describes it. The properties of which justify particular conclusions.

Do those ones on agreeableness for "males" and "females" have more or less the same shape?


You might try reading that Wikipedia article for reference.

But the ones for heights are more or less calculated from that equation so they're normal to begin with. But I seem to recollect I created them based on fairly common demographic measurements that have apparently been repeated many times; it's not like I'm pulling those graphs out of my nether regions.

Not quite sure why you balk at accepting that the "agreeableness" graphs - and those for many other traits - are more or less normal (specific equation). And that the populations they describe are more or less likewise. "Virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments"? :think: :roll:

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2390

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote: You and Service Dog, the latter in particular, remind me of the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students" of various Women Studies programs that were the subject of the book Professing Feminism:

https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/20 ... inism-noh/
In what way do I, in particular, resemble the virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors staff & students of various Women's Studies programs?
You insisted earlier that "the tool is defective... in exactly the way John said it was". And refused to answer my questions and address my arguments that John was more or less blowing smoke out of his arse. And/or that you were seriously misinterpreting what he was saying.
Service Dog wrote: Your claim is impossible to evaluate or heed, because you haven't actually stated it.
Yea, I did. In some detail:
Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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.
Nope. I am saying the tool is defective... in exactly the way John said it was.
Seems to me that John is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or wants to have his cake and eat it too. He has clearly and unambigously asserted the general usefulness of "the tool":

<snip>

Do you yourself accept those differences - on average - or not? Try thinking about the "joint probability distributions" I've provided for both heights and "agreeableness"; let me know if you need some assistance to get over those hurdles ... ;)

But they're really not all that difficult if you give them a bit of thought.
Of particular relevance is the question of whether men and women show, on average, some significant differences for various physiological and psychological traits. You might try answering that one.

But if you seriously think that that tool is "defective" then you may wish to write something up proving your case and submit it to various statistical journals because its use is ubiquitous and of a great deal of value in various hard and soft sciences. I'm sure there's a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can manage that ... :roll:

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2391

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: Do you understand what it means to say that a distribution curve is normal?

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

It has a particular equation that describes it. The properties of which justify particular conclusions.

Do those ones on agreeableness for "males" and "females" have more or less the same shape?
Thos graphs doesn't show normally distributed data. They aren't symmetrical. They seem to have a longer tail on the left than the right and the male one seems to have two peaks.
Steersman wrote: But the ones for heights are more or less calculated from that equation so they're normal to begin with. But I seem to recollect I created them based on fairly common demographic measurements that have apparently been repeated many times; it's not like I'm pulling those graphs out of my nether regions.
The height graph is calculated from a normal distribution? So it isn't actually a distribution of real heights? As I was saying, intuitively height isn't going to be normally distributed. I don't think you are making any claims that require you to insist the distribution is normal anyway. That's my point.
Steersman wrote: Not quite sure why you balk at accepting that the "agreeableness" graphs - and those for many other traits - are more or less normal (specific equation). And that the populations they describe are more or less likewise. "Virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments"? :think: :roll:
You don't need to incorrectly state that non-symmetric distributions with two peaks are normal to make the arguments you are making.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2392

Post by Service Dog »

Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote: You and Service Dog, the latter in particular, remind me of the "virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students" of various Women Studies programs that were the subject of the book Professing Feminism:

https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/20 ... inism-noh/
In what way do I, in particular, resemble the virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors staff & students of various Women's Studies programs?
You insisted earlier that "the tool is defective... in exactly the way John said it was". And refused to answer my questions and address my arguments that John was more or less blowing smoke out of his arse. And/or that you were seriously misinterpreting what he was saying.
Service Dog wrote: Your claim is impossible to evaluate or heed, because you haven't actually stated it.
Yea, I did. In some detail:
Steersman wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote: 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.
Nope. I am saying the tool is defective... in exactly the way John said it was.
Seems to me that John is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or wants to have his cake and eat it too. He has clearly and unambigously asserted the general usefulness of "the tool":

<snip>

Do you yourself accept those differences - on average - or not? Try thinking about the "joint probability distributions" I've provided for both heights and "agreeableness"; let me know if you need some assistance to get over those hurdles ... ;)

But they're really not all that difficult if you give them a bit of thought.
Of particular relevance is the question of whether men and women show, on average, some significant differences for various physiological and psychological traits. You might try answering that one.

But if you seriously think that that tool is "defective" then you may wish to write something up proving your case and submit it to various statistical journals because its use is ubiquitous and of a great deal of value in various hard and soft sciences. I'm sure there's a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can manage that ... :roll:
You have entirely failed to connect any of this to "the virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors staff & students of various Women's Studies programs". You assert there's some similarity, without actually saying what is supposedly similar.


For that matter-- I see no indication that you have any idea what I was talking-about, in my reply to John. Perhaps you can paraphrase my point-- regarding the nature of IQ tests-- to establish that your replies are in any way relevant to what I wrote.

So far-- you name-drop me & cite me as 'suggesting' something I didn't suggest. Seems like you hung my name on a strawman.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2393

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Do you understand what it means to say that a distribution curve is normal?

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

It has a particular equation that describes it. The properties of which justify particular conclusions.

Do those ones on agreeableness for "males" and "females" have more or less the same shape?
Those graphs doesn't show normally distributed data. They aren't symmetrical. They seem to have a longer tail on the left than the right and the male one seems to have two peaks.
You seem not to understand "more or less the same shape".
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: But the ones for heights are more or less calculated from that equation so they're normal to begin with. But I seem to recollect I created them based on fairly common demographic measurements that have apparently been repeated many times; it's not like I'm pulling those graphs out of my nether regions.
The height graph is calculated from a normal distribution? So it isn't actually a distribution of real heights? As I was saying, intuitively height isn't going to be normally distributed. I don't think you are making any claims that require you to insist the distribution is normal anyway. That's my point.
Again, not having a clue what "more or less the same shape means". You might try Googling "height distributions", this link and graph seems typical and is presumably based on real-world data:

Google_men_women_height_histogram.jpg
(22.21 KiB) Downloaded 42 times

The bar-charts are, presumably, the actual data but the outlines - for men and women - generally follow a normal distribution. The graphs that I had created were based on the same standard deviations (10 cm) but different means (165 & 175 cm if I remember correctly). The graph shown above has a larger standard deviation (wider base) for men than for women - as is typical for many traits - but probably the same different means (65" & 69").

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... 281%29.pdf
fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: Not quite sure why you balk at accepting that the "agreeableness" graphs - and those for many other traits - are more or less normal (specific equation). And that the populations they describe are more or less likewise. "Virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiments"? :think: :roll:
You don't need to incorrectly state that non-symmetric distributions with two peaks are normal to make the arguments you are making.
FFS, I am not saying those samples are normal. I'm saying that they're a close enough approximation to make the argument that the relevant populations are more or less normal themselves. Try looking at what John D. was saying as, in his better moments, he's not saying much that's different from what I'm saying.

But you might note that the bar-charts which are simplified into the smooth curves that are the normal distributions actually have several such "peaks" - they're largely immaterial beside the general shape. That is, more or less, standard methodology and terminology; I'm not trying to BS you or pull an argument out of my arse.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2394

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote:
Steersman wrote:
<snip>

Of particular relevance is the question of whether men and women show, on average, some significant differences for various physiological and psychological traits. You might try answering that one.

But if you seriously think that that tool is "defective" then you may wish to write something up proving your case and submit it to various statistical journals because its use is ubiquitous and of a great deal of value in various hard and soft sciences. I'm sure there's a Nobel prize waiting for you if you can manage that ... :roll:
You have entirely failed to connect any of this to "the virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors staff & students of various Women's Studies programs". You assert there's some similarity, without actually saying what is supposedly similar.
The "tool" we were talking about was normal distributions. Which you said was "defective". Maybe you can cut to the chase, can clearly and unambiguously state whether that particular tool is defective or not?

But you think that isn't evidence of a "virulent anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiment"?

Not to mention being unable or unwilling to answer my question as to whether there are significant differences - on average - between men and women. As well as between other groups.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2395

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Branca believes a lone "masked Karen" -- the foreman -- is holding up acquittal:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/r ... Bmbm03xiu4

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2396

Post by Service Dog »

I had zero participation in your back & forth with John.

I read about his wife's doctor's statistical ignorance. I read about the lifespan of drill bits. I read about IQ test score distributions.

I noted that IQ test questions-- are often exercises in treating imperfect metaphors-- as-if they perfectly match a discernible, abstracted, pattern template. And the more tenuous the match/ the more that's treated as evidence of higher IQ (a more difficult question); rather than evidence of the apparent match being a false positive... and the person seeing the match... being delusional.

In no way did I engage with your boring new attempt to prove your same old boring shit.

My only involvement has been to correct you-- when you said I was 'suggesting' something I wasn't suggesting. And to ask what the fuck you were alluding to, when you invoked my name & said I was similar-to the anti-scientific attitudes of Women's Studies... in some unstated way.

I'm not "unwilling or unable to answer your question" about gender differences... I Wasn't Part Of That Conversation At-All, and I'm still not.

And, no, I'm not gonna get a Nobel Prize for pointing-out the gap between an abstract platonic-ideal model curve... vs. measurables of reality. "The map is not the territory" is not a novel thought.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2397

Post by Brive1987 »

411.

Karen Sykes - defies commonsense and inconsistent with her boyfriends story
https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationno ... story.html

Garrett Bardsley - just odd.
https://www.strangeoutdoors.com/mysteri ... t-bardsley

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2398

Post by Steersman »

Service Dog wrote: I had zero participation in your back & forth with John.

I read about his wife's doctor's statistical ignorance. I read about the lifespan of drill bits. I read about IQ test score distributions.

I noted that IQ test questions-- are often exercises in treating imperfect metaphors-- as-if they perfectly match a discernible, abstracted, pattern template. And the more tenuous the match/ the more that's treated as evidence of higher IQ (a more difficult question); rather than evidence of the apparent match being a false positive... and the person seeing the match... being delusional.
That's not all there is to IQ tests:
The many different kinds of IQ tests include a wide variety of item content. Some test items are visual, while many are verbal. Test items vary from being based on abstract-reasoning problems to concentrating on arithmetic, vocabulary, or general knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... factor_(g)
Service Dog wrote: In no way did I engage with your boring new attempt to prove your same old boring shit.
You SAID that the tool was defective. And you've rather clearly indicated that the tool you had in mind was normal distributions and the inferences that can be drawn from them:
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.
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 80#p506305
Service Dog wrote: My only involvement has been to correct you-- when you said I was 'suggesting' something I wasn't suggesting. And to ask what the fuck you were alluding to, when you invoked my name & said I was similar-to the anti-scientific attitudes of Women's Studies... in some unstated way.
You've been pretty clear that you're looking down your nose on normal distributions and their uses. Not sure what's more of a smoking gun when it comes to anti-scientific attitudes.
Service Dog wrote: I'm not "unwilling or unable to answer your question" about gender differences... I Wasn't Part Of That Conversation At-All, and I'm still not.
Probably unwilling or unable because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
Service Dog wrote: And, no, I'm not gonna get a Nobel Prize for pointing-out the gap between an abstract platonic-ideal model curve... vs. measurables of reality.
You ever do any gambling? Play the odds one way or another? That's pretty much all of what normal distributions are all about, quantifying various probabilities and the inferences that can be drawn from "the measurables of reality"; whole field of statistics has its roots in the study of gambling:
Mathematical probability theory arose from the study of games of chance ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics#History
Service Dog wrote: "The map is not the territory" is not a novel thought.
No, it goes back at least to 1931:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80 ... y_relation

Bit depressing that so many are so clueless about such an essential concept.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2399

Post by fafnir »

Steersman wrote: FFS, I am not saying those samples are normal. I'm saying that they're a close enough approximation to make the argument that the relevant populations are more or less normal themselves. Try looking at what John D. was saying as, in his better moments, he's not saying much that's different from what I'm saying.
Your argument doesn't require them to be normal.

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

Re: Steerzing in a New Direction...

#2400

Post by Steersman »

fafnir wrote:
Steersman wrote: FFS, I am not saying those samples are normal. I'm saying that they're a close enough approximation to make the argument that the relevant populations are more or less normal themselves. Try looking at what John D. was saying as, in his better moments, he's not saying much that's different from what I'm saying.
Your argument doesn't require them to be normal.
And your evidence and argument for that is what? You might try expending a bit of thought and effort to justify your claims. Who knows? You or I - or both of us - might learn something ... ;)

But don't think you know much about statistics, and don't show much willingness to learn anything about the topic. Not that I'm any pro from Dover on it - it's a complex one and I've probably only touched the surface. But I think I have something of a tenuous grip on some of the basic principles.

One of them being, presumably, that if the samples - for the agreeableness trait in particular - aren't at least "approximately" normal then it's more difficult to justify much in the way of inferences from the sample to the population. Which is more or less the objective:
In statistics, quality assurance, and survey methodology, sampling is the selection of a subset (a statistical sample) of individuals from within a statistical population to estimate characteristics of the whole population. Statisticians attempt to collect samples that are representative of the population in question. Sampling has lower costs and faster data collection than measuring the entire population and can provide insights in cases where it is infeasible to sample an entire population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29

Post Reply