Kids are nowfighting back.
I think that day care workers should consider arming themselves as protection against the toddlers.
The answer seems to be; More Guns.
It also directly contradicts you.
[QUOTE=you]
He should have said there is a 95% chance the real value was within the interval,
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=your cite]
It is natural to interpret a 95% confidence interval as an interval with a 0.95 probability of containing the population mean. However, the proper interpretation is not that simple.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, he said he took a stats course in college, he didn’t say he passed it.
Yeah, but I always thought the difference in wording to be a bit semantical. However Hentor’s interpretation isn’t even close. Bullshit, I think is the best descriptor.
Got an A in fact.
What’d’ja do, pull a gun on your teacher?
He reported it as a “defensive gun use”
If bullshit…say why. Your inability to explain your point very seriously undermines your credibility…even in the Pit!
I mean, yeah, bullshit, buttwipe, dongblister, shitsnorter, etc. We love a good round of cussin’ here. But, dude, this is MATH! It’s one of the very few topics where you can actually PROVE what you believe. Does God exist? Fuck all if anybody knows. Is holism superior to reductionism? Nobody even really understands the question. Is Bluegrass good music? Well, okay, that goes without saying.
But, math, guy. Math. Prove your fucking point! If you can’t, then just cussing ain’t gonna carry the day.
I gave you the link that explains why. If you can’t figure it from that, then nothing I say will help you. And yeah, my guess is you can’t figure it.
Ah, the good old ad hominem. Noooope, you got nothing. You probably lied about getting a good grade in the class, too…
Sheesh. You had every chance, too, to make a good showing. It’s called math, and you’ve demonstrated ineptitude. But ineptitude at name-calling? Now that’s feeble.
Statistically, we shouldn’t judge all gun-advocates by this sample of one…
Actually, in trying to expediently find a way to simplify it for Damuri Ajashi, I did end up misspeaking. My previous descriptions are correct - in this case, we can be 95% confident that the zero effect is among the possible true values (given by the specified range), not that it is the true value.
The fact that I’ve repeatedly described it as such up until that point kind of makes Kable’s triumphalism a little weasely, but hey, he did purport to getting an A in a 270 level stats course somewhere.
See Trinopus, I will be happy to hear your apology now.
I’m just pleased to see that some of what I’ve been saying all along sunk in a little bit.
But boy are you a smarmy little pussy.
Pride is unbecoming. You should be more humble when you are backpedalling your prior bullshit statements.
You appear to not even know the meaning of the word backpedaling.
Could you please explain for everyone the implications of the misstatement that I made?
What this?
I’ll leave it to someone else to give a stats lesson. I just know bullshit when I smell it, and Hentor, you stink.
Why? He told the truth, and you’re still lying.
I’m afraid that the ignorance and irrational fear is mostly on your side on this one.
Having fear of guns is not irrational, the level of and the manifestation of that fear is irrational.
If you really don’t understand what numbers and mathematics say, then it’s quite hard to have a logical conversation with you.
Huh. Well, then I’m disappointed in Kable. Somebody who has taken 1 semester of college statistics can be forgiven for not appreciating multivariate analysis, but they really should know about confidence intervals. Maybe the odds ratio context is confusing him. Or perhaps he’s just another internet jackass.
Good catch: multivariate analysis is a pretty important concept actually, as it allows social scientists to do something analogous to a controlled experiment.
Another good catch. It might be better to use the phrase, “Statistically discernible”, but unfortunately the proper technical term is “Statistically significant”. A statistically significant effect can be miniscule in size-- all significance means is that the investigator rules out that what he is measuring was produced by chance (or if it was produced by chance, that would only happen 5% of the time or whatever ). Conversely, a large effect can be statistically insignificant if the power of your test is weak. A herd of elephants can have a pretty devastating impact on a one acre farm, but if the viewer is on the moon, it won’t be clear to him what is happening. The magnitude of the effect is high, but crude measurement prevents it from being confirmed.
There’s probably some Bayesian argument that a gun advocate could make, but it wouldn’t involve challenging the integrity of the author of the original piece.