The Gospel

ceo_esq said:
This is incorrect, and here's why. As emphasized several times already, my statement referred to raw frequency only, or the simple number of occurrences, not statistical frequency, or the likelihood of an occurrence expressed as a percentage of total posts. The total number of posts overall, like the total number of posts for any poster, are irrelevant to a raw frequency count.
Click to expand...

You realize you can't make any inferences from that data, right? There isn't any way to determine statistical significance. It's meaningless. You can't compare raw data to other raw data.

This is like saying one car traveled 3 miles and another traved 47 somehow means one car is faster than the other.
 
ceo_esq said:
Fowlsound, what have I already told you about people not taking you seriously if you refuse to lift a finger for the few seconds it would take to look at the available data? Even though the software will present it for you in exactly the same way I could if you were standing in front of me!
Click to expand...

It's your claim, chief. That's how things work. Present your case or admit the truth of the matter: it's only your impression that fowlsound is rude, not a fact. This is all just a subjective opinion you're oddly unwilling to admit you made.
 
ceo_esq said:
It's not too relevant because the mean is the figure we're interested in. But seriously - you have a series of more than 8,000, fewer than 200 of which have a (raw frequency) value other than zero. I don't know if a determination that the mode and median values are zero really deserves to be called "number crunching" unless one's really not used to using one's head for that purpose, which may or may not be true in your case. And by the way, it's also possible to arrive at that conclusion deductively from the basis of the figures 8,000 and 200 and the definition of median and mode. You are too much sometimes.
Click to expand...
headache_man.jpg

This is a pictoral representation of the entire field of statistics when this post hit the internet.

You can't talk about "raw frequency" when "the mean is the figure we're interested in." Your analysis is total rubbish. We don't know if you've chosen a week that happens to be an abberation, because you don't have very many data points. Are we talking about frequency of use in a given time period? That's a totally meaningless statistic, biased against people who are frequent posters. Are we talking about frequency of use of these words relative to use of other words? Fowlsound produces a LOT more posts with a lot more words than your average poster. One use of the word from a poster who makes 10 100 word posts posts a week would be far more significant than 10 from a person who makes 2000 500 word posts per week.

If you actually wanted to calculate anything resembling a statistic for this data, you'd have to generate some kind of Markov model for insulting word usage with blind data from all of the posters. You'd have to blindly select all the words you deemed insulting. Then you'd have to plug fowlsound's posts into that model to find out if he was an aberation.

Obviously there are other ways you could do this analysis, but even if you did it there's a flaw in how you define "insulting." And there's no way to weed out the contextual meaning (unless you built a seriously powerful stochastic grammar of some kind. If that's the rapid calculation you preformed in your head when you deemed fowlsound was factually rude, please contact Nature or Science. Your head is officially the most powerful computation tool on the planet.)
 
Ok, so now it has been explained twice to ceo_esq why his statistical research is crap.


What say you ceo?
 
Ossai said:
ceo_esq

No, what you did was post an unsupported assertion then ignore all comments.

Ossai
Click to expand...

Ossai, what exactly was the unsupported assertion, please? If you're referring to the assumptions I made in order to reconcile the Gospel passages, then I submit that it doesn't matter to the point I was making. If one is solely attempting to demonstrate that several texts can be read together without giving rise to a necessary logical contradiction, then it doesn't matter whether the assumptions are well-founded ones or not, provided that they do not explicitly contradict any proposition contained in the texts and do not otherwise posit an independent logical contradiction. In fact, all saying that certain texts don't together yield an inherent logical contradiction really means is that there is at least one reading that does not explicitly contravene any proposition contained in the texts or depend upon a logically impossible assumption. It doesn't mean that that reading, or the assumptions upon which it relies, are the best or most natural. I freely admitted in the other thread that the "last words" scenario I outlined does not appear to me to be the most natural, compelling, or best interpretation of the texts.

And if I recall correctly, I responded to a number of substantive comments in my very next post in the thread in question; please don't suggest otherwise.


delphi_ote said:
You realize you can't make any inferences from that data, right? There isn't any way to determine statistical significance. It's meaningless. You can't compare raw data to other raw data.

This is like saying one car traveled 3 miles and another traved 47 somehow means one car is faster than the other.
Click to expand...

I don't think I made any inferences from that data, delphi_ote. To borrow the terms of your analogy, it's simply like saying that one car traveled 3 miles and another traveled 47, period. It is indeed meaningless to a determination of which car is faster, though not meaningless in any absolute sense of course.


delphi_ote said:
It's your claim, chief. That's how things work. Present your case or admit the truth of the matter: it's only your impression that fowlsound is rude, not a fact. This is all just a subjective opinion you're oddly unwilling to admit you made.
Click to expand...

I would have thought it went without saying that an assessment of rudeness has an inherently subjective dimension. If I explicitly stated otherwise, and I am fairly sure I did not, then I misspoke. However, you surely noticed that what fowlsound and I were last disputing was not technically the proposition that he is rude.


delphi_ote said:
This is a pictoral representation of the entire field of statistics when this post hit the internet.

...

You can't talk about "raw frequency" when "the mean is the figure we're interested in." Your analysis is total rubbish. We don't know if you've chosen a week that happens to be an abberation, because you don't have very many data points. Are we talking about frequency of use in a given time period? That's a totally meaningless statistic, biased against people who are frequent posters. Are we talking about frequency of use of these words relative to use of other words? Fowlsound produces a LOT more posts with a lot more words than your average poster. One use of the word from a poster who makes 10 100 word posts posts a week would be far more significant than 10 from a person who makes 2000 500 word posts per week.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of all this (though you probably shouldn't conflate "significant" and "statistically significant"). At any rate, for the very reasons you've stated, among others, I expressly omitted to draw inferences from the data. I daresay the "entire field of statistics" would notice this fundamental point, but its ostensible mouthpiece apparently overlooked it.
 
ceo_esq said:
I'm aware of all this (though you probably shouldn't conflate "significant" and "statistically significant"). At any rate, for the very reasons you've stated, among others, I expressly omitted to draw inferences from the data. I daresay the "entire field of statistics" would notice this fundamental point, but its ostensible mouthpiece apparently overlooked it.
Click to expand...

You drew numerous inferences, ceo. Ceo, please stop using words you don't understand, you're embarassing yourself, and wasting our time.
 
ceo_esq said:
I'm aware of all this (though you probably shouldn't conflate "significant" and "statistically significant"). At any rate, for the very reasons you've stated, among others, I expressly omitted to draw inferences from the data. I daresay the "entire field of statistics" would notice this fundamental point, but its ostensible mouthpiece apparently overlooked it.
Click to expand...


Not true. I pointed out this problem of yours starting here.

Now enough platitudes. You made an unfounded assumption. I asked for evidence. You provided a narrative of your searches and then went on to argue that your statistical data proves your point because you think it proves your point. Your have been shown to use confirmation bias in applying your statistical findings and you have spend 3 pages avoiding actually proving your point in any meaningful way.

Your pedantic avoidance and shifting of the goalposts in what defines your assertion is quite simply beneath a man of your intelligence and background.

In fact, in the past 3 pages of this thread, you have asserted that I am out to "punish" trolls (twice, actually,) asserted that I "direct terms like "idiot", "moron", and "jerk" at other people here significantly more often than the average poster does." and when asked to provide evidence to back up that claim, you cherry-picked your data so as to support your confirmation bias about your conclusions of me. You have ignored when we pointed out flaws on your assumptions and refused to admit you were wrong in asserting an unfounded accusation against my character (which, is considered an ad-hominem attack, by the way.) You've acted as a weasely pedant, and amusingly, continued a derail in the thread you complained was being derailed.

As for "significant" vs. "statistically significant" your argument is just sad. Just because you found 12 posts you think are significant in respect to the average poster does not make it so. If you had shown them to be statistically significant you may have actually had a point. You however did not, and acted as quite the pedant.

I'll take that you replied to other posts and not mine to mean you're dropping this matter?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
On reflection, I don't recall anyone refering to Chewy as "him". It was always "Let the wookie win", or "Chewy, get over here!" I'll have to watch the trilogy carefully to be sure, but I think there's no evidence that Chewy's male.
Click to expand...

"THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.

HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee."

Sorry, boys.
 
LostAngeles said:
"THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.

HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee."

Sorry, boys.
Click to expand...

"No one complains when a droid loses..."

"That's because droids don't rip your arms out of your shoulders when they lose. Wookies have been known to do that..."

(I can't believe you left out the good part.)
 
Roadtoad said:
"No one complains when a droid loses..."

"That's because droids don't rip your arms out of your shoulders when they lose. Wookies have been known to do that..."

(I can't believe you left out the good part.)
Click to expand...

Only because I needed the relevant part. If they were True Fans (NOT A FALLACY), the good part would have been understood.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
You drew numerous inferences, ceo. Ceo, please stop using words you don't understand, you're embarassing yourself, and wasting our time.
Click to expand...

Please point out a couple or three explicit ones from among these allegedly numerous inferences in my text.
 
ceo_esq said:
Please point out a couple or three explicit ones from among these allegedly numerous inferences in my text.
Click to expand...


I can understand double posts when timestamp shows immediate postings, but 14 minutes? ceo, you're not posting after a few scotches are you?
 
By the power of geekery in all things, "Star ____," I will aid you, ceo_esq, in your quest for evidence. Take up this tiny knife and we shall embark on an angst filled quest to save the world.

fowlsound said:
Not true. I pointed out this problem of yours starting here.

Now enough platitudes. You made an unfounded assumption. I asked for evidence. You provided a narrative of your searches and then went on to argue that your statistical data proves your point because you think it proves your point. Your have been shown to use confirmation bias in applying your statistical findings and you have spend 3 pages avoiding actually proving your point in any meaningful way.

Your pedantic avoidance and shifting of the goalposts in what defines your assertion is quite simply beneath a man of your intelligence and background.

In fact, in the past 3 pages of this thread, you have asserted that I am out to "punish" trolls (twice, actually,) asserted that I "direct terms like "idiot", "moron", and "jerk" at other people here significantly more often than the average poster does." and when asked to provide evidence to back up that claim, you cherry-picked your data so as to support your confirmation bias about your conclusions of me. You have ignored when we pointed out flaws on your assumptions and refused to admit you were wrong in asserting an unfounded accusation against my character (which, is considered an ad-hominem attack, by the way.) You've acted as a weasely pedant, and amusingly, continued a derail in the thread you complained was being derailed.

As for "significant" vs. "statistically significant" your argument is just sad. Just because you found 12 posts you think are significant in respect to the average poster does not make it so. If you had shown them to be statistically significant you may have actually had a point. You however did not, and acted as quite the pedant.

I'll take that you replied to other posts and not mine to mean you're dropping this matter?
Click to expand...

...Or y'know, be a red-shirt.
 
Roadtoad said:
"No one complains when a droid loses..."

"That's because droids don't rip your arms out of your shoulders when they lose. Wookies have been known to do that..."

(I can't believe you left out the good part.)
Click to expand...

she was quoting the part which indicates that Chewy's male. I was going to get a kick out of saying "under that carpet, there's a rug!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom