• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Luton Airport Car Park Fire part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
W.D.Clinger said:
I don't know what you mean by that.

As noted by Wikipedia, "Many college entrance exams and nationally used school tests use norm-referenced tests" and "IQ tests are norm-referenced tests". Those tests typically consist of a finite number of multiple-choice questions, or questions of some similar type that can be graded objectively by machine. It is possible to answer every question correctly, thereby achieving the test's maximum possible score.
Click to expand...

I wondered the very same thing, but then I wondered whether I knew what a norm-referenced test is and I couldn't be bothered to look it up.
 
NB. Apologies if I've mentioned this before, but I did know someone who was a member for a year, and she didn't renew because:

"It's full of moronic brick-layers and taxi-drivers who are constantly whining that they should be in charge of everything."

I'm not so sure about the put down by profession, as I've met some remarkably interesting brick-layers and taxi-drivers throughout my life, but I certainly understand and appreciate the 'whining' part.
 
I guess five statements are a bit much, so, Vixen, let me ask a series of simpler questions. I'll start with nos. 3 and 4 from the previous list, since you seemed to balk at them for no reason I understand.

Let's start with no. 3.

Are the following two statements true or false, in your estimation.

  • The vehicle in the photo -- the one you say must display a battery fire -- is in the driving lane and NOT a parking space.
  • The initial vehicle was in motion when the fire started[1] and hence in a driving lane and NOT a parking space.

Do you reckon both of those statements are true? Or is one or the other (or both) doubtful?

Again, there's really no trick here. I'm just trying to figure out precisely what you think about the simplest facts of the case at present. I'm not playing gotcha.

[1] As reported by the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue service press release.
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
As noted by Wikipedia, "Many college entrance exams and nationally used school tests use norm-referenced tests" and "IQ tests are norm-referenced tests". Those tests typically consist of a finite number of multiple-choice questions, or questions of some similar type that can be graded objectively by machine. It is possible to answer every question correctly, thereby achieving the test's maximum possible score.
Click to expand...

Yes, every test that has a discrete, bounded number of questions has a maximum score. And often for admissions, the unnormalized numerical score is what matters. If a test is notoriously easy, however, or notoriously difficult, then the norm-referenced score (e.g., percentile) is more meaningful.
 
phiwum said:
I wondered the very same thing, but then I wondered whether I knew what a norm-referenced test is and I couldn't be bothered to look it up.
Click to expand...

It's a bit of abstract statistical handwaving. I was mostly hoping Vixen would attempt to explain herself and therefore be amusing.

If your score on a test is your rank among all test-takers, regardless of raw score, it is a norm-referenced test. This is why the baseline I.Q. is always 100 regardless of how smart the population actually is.

If your score on a test is the raw number of points earned out of a perfect maximum, then that is certainly valid on its own. And you can apply a normalization to it, but it's not meaningful to combine concepts of normalized and unnormalized scores. This is what it seemed Vixen was doing when referring to "near maximum" scores and "normed" tests.
 
Vixen said:
I did not say I was superior I was refuting Mojo's claim that I was an 11th percenter who thinks they are 62nd percenters.

Back in the day, it was a straightforward exam and only the roughly one in two hundred who passed were invited to an interview.
Click to expand...
… but that is not what you boasted, you boasted that, “ but only one person in two hundred passed the Civil Service Fast Track exam back in the day ”, not that 1 in 200 were invited to interview.
I passed it, so hardly an 11 percenter who thinks they are 62nd percenters.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
The pass rate of the tested population is not given, only the interview number/rate resulting from the test.

Can you not tell the difference?
 
Last edited:
I hate to dip a toe into this IQ test digression but the Dunning-Kruger effect is about subject expertise and not about general intelligence. Smart people can fool themselves into imagining they have a better grasp than they really do of a topic they haven't studied, just as surely as idiots can.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Hmmmm, 11+ being more than pass or fail? Not what I heard from those who took it; and those of us (Co Durham) who had our work from our last 2 years of primary school taken in for assessment for grammar school certainly didn't get more than pass or fail.
Click to expand...



Might be seen as a nit-pick :=]

Way back (1967 Swansea) I got more than a fail (but less than a pass) in my 11+. I had to take what they called a "borderline" re-test which had an exclusively English comprehension focus.


Compus
 
Vixen said:
One would have thought after the Luton fire, the press would be champing at the bit to report the Gatwick one - let's face it, the press are after clicks. But nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:Why would "one" make such an assumption?
 
Vixen said:
Regarding your points 3 and 4. It has never been confirmed that the CCTV images widely circulated was the car in question. The source of yet another video, circulated only by someone on Twitter with 200 followers, supposedly taken from the front with a visible number plate has never been accepted as credible information by any publication that I can discern. yet catsmate thinks this video, which I believe is deep fake, as none of the press has touched it when normally they would leap on such a scoop, reveals the vehicle to be a particular Range Rover Sport 2014 and therefore diesel-fuled only.
Click to expand...
You're lying again. I never referenced anything on TwiX. I've told you this, repeatedly, but you refuse to accept it.

And "deep fake"? :rolleyes: Please this is just stupid conspiratorial nonsense.

Vixen said:
Yet it is a fact that many of the early hybrids were simply registered by DVLA as petrol or diesel cars.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Evidence for this claim?
 
JayUtah said:
As has almost anyone who has obtained at least college undergraduate degree, which I suspect comprises most of the people participating in this thread.

The categorical reasoning problem here is that a "logic test" is not the same as "a test that includes a logic component" if one's evident goal is to report the aggregate score of a comprehensive test as if specifically dealt with logic. One could score quite high on, say, the verbal or spatial reasoning components, and relatively poorly on the logic section, and still come away with an enviable aggregate score.

But the salient point is that claiming to have scored very high on multiple "logic tests" to insinuate a qualification that forces us to ignore demonstrably poor reasoning is a feeble ploy. No one asked Vixen how she scored on these or any tests. She's offering it up voluntarily as some sort of reason why we should ignore her inability to reason.
Click to expand...
I had an older sister studying psychology, so I became deeply familiar with the Peabody, Stanford-Binet and Wechsler tests, among others.
 
novaphile said:
NB. Apologies if I've mentioned this before, but I did know someone who was a member for a year, and she didn't renew because:

"It's full of moronic brick-layers and taxi-drivers who are constantly whining that they should be in charge of everything."

I'm not so sure about the put down by profession, as I've met some remarkably interesting brick-layers and taxi-drivers throughout my life, but I certainly understand and appreciate the 'whining' part.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure on the brick layers but my elderly neighbour's friendly (and also elderly) taxi-driver has a master's in political science and a doctorate in history. He writes for a number of magazines and is a fascinating conversationalist. He's also an excellent musician.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I hate to dip a toe into this IQ test digression but the Dunning-Kruger effect is about subject expertise and not about general intelligence. Smart people can fool themselves into imagining they have a better grasp than they really do of a topic they haven't studied, just as surely as idiots can.
Click to expand...

True. But the discussion of both here is just a bit of drift from the claim of scoring well in a number of undefined "logic" tests. And we do have a poster here who has attempted, without evidence and across several threads, to claim expertise in a number of specific subjects.

And DK does not discriminate. It can be applied to both idiots and smart people.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes: Which doesn't mean it was a hybrid. As you well know.
Click to expand...


Not to mention the fact - which Vixen still seems to be (conveniently) ignoring - that the Beds Fire & Rescue Service has now made it explicitly and unequivocally clear that the initial vehicle that caught fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not a hybrid vehicle of any kind.

Vixen is, IMO, trying to throw up a smoke screen around whether the vehicle on fire in the early photos was "Car Zero", or whether some other as-yet-unidentified vehicle was "Car Zero". But that's an entirely moot attempt at an argument now - because whatever vehicle was "Car Zero", we now know for certain that it was not an EV of any variety.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not to mention the fact - which Vixen still seems to be (conveniently) ignoring - that the Beds Fire & Rescue Service has now made it explicitly and unequivocally clear that the initial vehicle that caught fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not a hybrid vehicle of any kind.

Vixen is, IMO, trying to throw up a smoke screen around whether the vehicle on fire in the early photos was "Car Zero", or whether some other as-yet-unidentified vehicle was "Car Zero". But that's an entirely moot attempt at an argument now - because whatever vehicle was "Car Zero", we now know for certain that it was not an EV of any variety.
Click to expand...

It's a curious example of desperately trying to find a way to avoid being seen to have been wrong. Having nailed her colours to the burning car looking like a lithium battery fire, but then learned the fire service are adamant the car in question was no type of EV, the only hiding place is to deny that the photo is the same car.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however ridiculous, must be proclaimed as the truth. In this case, as usual, the impossibility Vixen has eliminated is that of her being wrong.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's a curious example of desperately trying to find a way to avoid being seen to have been wrong. Having nailed her colours to the burning car looking like a lithium battery fire, but then learned the fire service are adamant the car in question was no type of EV, the only hiding place is to deny that the photo is the same car.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however ridiculous, must be proclaimed as the truth. In this case, as usual, the impossibility Vixen has eliminated is that of her being wrong.
Click to expand...

It's hard to be wrong when you have wheels installed on your goalposts.
 
I’m not sure the Fast Stream has ever had a 0.5% pass rate for interview. The figures Vixen quotes are about 2% of applicants are offered jobs, not offered an interview.

I applied for the Fast Stream in 2006 and 2007, which involved doing an exam, an in-tray exercise, and a piece of writing, all online and timed. About 10% of those that applied were invited to a two-day assessment centre, which had five exercises including the interview. I made it both times.

Of those at the assessment, we were told about a fifth would be offered a place on the Fast Stream (which tallies with the 2% in Vixen’s link), but it was contingent on making the grade and there being slots available at a cluster of departments.

Sadly, or not given I’m happy with how my life turned out, I was a near miss both times, scoring an average of 3.8 and then 3.6 out of 5, where 4 was Fast Stream calibre. I blame my worsening performance on a motorbike crash which shattered my arm 2 weeks before, so I was in a cast and on hefty painkillers!

I note all this not so you can worship me as one of the 10% (though do feel free!) but so people have a sense of the process relatively recently.

CompusMentus said:
Might be seen as a nit-pick :=]

Way back (1967 Swansea) I got more than a fail (but less than a pass) in my 11+. I had to take what they called a "borderline" re-test which had an exclusively English comprehension focus.


Compus
Click to expand...

You must have done your 11+ in Swansea in the same year as my Auntie Jen. She didn’t do well. In the end, she joined the Civil Service as a clerical assistant aged 16, and worked her way up to retire as a Senior Civil Servant. No Fast Stream for her, though she managed and promoted a lot of them over the years.
 
LondonJohn said:
Not to mention the fact - which Vixen still seems to be (conveniently) ignoring - that the Beds Fire & Rescue Service has now made it explicitly and unequivocally clear that the initial vehicle that caught fire was an ordinary diesel car, and not a hybrid vehicle of any kind.
Click to expand...
Exactly. She now has to assume that the Five Service are "in on it", hence the conspiratorial drivel about censorship and political interference.


LondonJohn said:
Vixen is, IMO, trying to throw up a smoke screen around whether the vehicle on fire in the early photos was "Car Zero", or whether some other as-yet-unidentified vehicle was "Car Zero". But that's an entirely moot attempt at an argument now - because whatever vehicle was "Car Zero", we now know for certain that it was not an EV of any variety.
Click to expand...
Also true. Art to Luton we know the make, model, age and power-train of "car zero". It's not even particularly difficult to identify the owner.

Not a big Li battery in sight.
 
phiwum said:
I guess five statements are a bit much, so, Vixen, let me ask a series of simpler questions. I'll start with nos. 3 and 4 from the previous list, since you seemed to balk at them for no reason I understand.

Let's start with no. 3.

Are the following two statements true or false, in your estimation.

  • The vehicle in the photo -- the one you say must display a battery fire -- is in the driving lane and NOT a parking space.
  • The initial vehicle was in motion when the fire started[1] and hence in a driving lane and NOT a parking space.

Do you reckon both of those statements are true? Or is one or the other (or both) doubtful?

Again, there's really no trick here. I'm just trying to figure out precisely what you think about the simplest facts of the case at present. I'm not playing gotcha.

[1] As reported by the Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue service press release.
Click to expand...

I am sure that is correct except as I advised, it has not been confirmed that the vehicle in the CCTV clip is the vehicle referred to by BFR&S.
 
Vixen said:
I am sure that is correct except as I advised, it has not been confirmed that the vehicle in the CCTV clip is the vehicle referred to by BFR&S.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, though, does it? They've confirmed that the vehicle where the fire started was a diesel. What remaining issue do you have?
 
EHocking said:
… but that is not what you boasted, you boasted that, “ but only one person in two hundred passed the Civil Service Fast Track exam back in the day ”, not that 1 in 200 were invited to interview.How do you know?
The pass rate of the tested population is not given, only the interview number/rate resulting from the test.

Can you not tell the difference?
Click to expand...

That was the common understanding. Chances of passing very slim, obviously owing to limited number of places but still very competitive.
 
zooterkin said:
Vixen said:
I did not say I was superior I was refuting Mojo's claim that I was an 11th percenter who thinks they are 62nd percenters.
Click to expand...

Can you link to where this claim was made by Mojo?
Click to expand...


:id:

Vixen said:
Don't put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Stop putting words into my mouth and claiming to be able to second guess me.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Please don't put other people's words into my mouth.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Please stop twisting my words and putting words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
I have declared nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth or twist them.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
I am sure that is correct except as I advised, it has not been confirmed that the vehicle in the CCTV clip is the vehicle referred to by BFR&S.
Click to expand...

Fine. Since I never said that the pictured vehicle is the initial vehicle discussed in the report, no matter.

Now, let's try the fourth one.

  • The pictured vehicle has a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
  • The driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful [1].

Do you agree with (a) and (b) above as well?

[1] As mentioned in the latest press release and also claimed by a witness in this article who said, "We try to catch the first fire extinguisher from this floor but they was already used, probably the owner of this car used this." Obviously, the press release is the more trustworthy source.
 
JayUtah said:
It's a bit of abstract statistical handwaving. I was mostly hoping Vixen would attempt to explain herself and therefore be amusing.

If your score on a test is your rank among all test-takers, regardless of raw score, it is a norm-referenced test. This is why the baseline I.Q. is always 100 regardless of how smart the population actually is.

If your score on a test is the raw number of points earned out of a perfect maximum, then that is certainly valid on its own. And you can apply a normalization to it, but it's not meaningful to combine concepts of normalized and unnormalized scores. This is what it seemed Vixen was doing when referring to "near maximum" scores and "normed" tests.
Click to expand...

By normed I meant normed to the normal distribution. If the salient measurement is the z - standard deviation from the mean, often designated as '50' to represent the mean and as being easy to understand. So, if Dunning & Kruger say a person at the 11th percentile often incorrectly estimates their ability at the 62nd, then we are looking at a z score of -1.23 (reality) versus 0.62 (belief). If you look at the Gaussian curve you can see the area represented by z = -1.23 and +0.62, you'll see that it mostly falls within the 'average band' one standard deviation and slightly more below the mean (to the left of it) and almost one sd the right of it. Note the sheer number of the population that fall within ± one standard deviation (=50%) ipso facto. So far, so good?

So someone passes a 'normed' IQ test via Mensa at the 98th percentile (the imputed pass mark for entry). This we can see this it at z = 2.05 (standard deviations from the mean). Agreed? So then to juxtapose the parallel situation of such a person who scores at the 98th percentile with the earlier Dunning-Kruger character "at the 11th percentile who thinks they are at the 62nd", then in my case, such a person has overestimated their superiority over myself by z = +1.35 standard deviations. Look at the area under the curve in the wiki link, above, and you can see the number of people in the population is now quite rarified and of course, that is what standard deviations from the mean reflect: a point of comparison within a normally distributed population. Obviously, human measurements can never follow the exact course of abstract statistics because other variables come into play, due to genetic conditions, for example that can skew the tails at either side.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's a curious example of desperately trying to find a way to avoid being seen to have been wrong. Having nailed her colours to the burning car looking like a lithium battery fire, but then learned the fire service are adamant the car in question was no type of EV, the only hiding place is to deny that the photo is the same car.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, however ridiculous, must be proclaimed as the truth. In this case, as usual, the impossibility Vixen has eliminated is that of her being wrong.
Click to expand...

Or...someone who is actually interested in the topic.
 
Vixen said:
Or...someone who is actually interested in the topic.
Click to expand...

For someone interested in the topic, you spend an awful lot of time talking about other things.

The vehicle where the fire started, concerns about which were what prompted you to start this thread, has been confirmed to be a diesel. Are you now satisfied that no-one is hushing up an EV-started fire in this case?
 
phiwum said:
Fine. Since I never said that the pictured vehicle is the initial vehicle discussed in the report, no matter.

Now, let's try the fourth one.

  • The pictured vehicle has a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
  • The driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful [1].

Do you agree with (a) and (b) above as well?

[1] As mentioned in the latest press release and also claimed by a witness in this article who said, "We try to catch the first fire extinguisher from this floor but they was already used, probably the owner of this car used this." Obviously, the press release is the more trustworthy source.
Click to expand...

As I recall it was a Romanian lady and her friend who were off to attend a wedding in Romania from Luton Airport. They ran to get an extinguisher from a lower floor but then wisely decided to leave the scene.
 
Vixen said:
As I recall it was a Romanian lady and her friend who were off to attend a wedding in Romania from Luton Airport. They ran to get an extinguisher from a lower floor but then wisely decided to leave the scene.
Click to expand...

Do you think you could actually reply to the post you are quoting?
 
Vixen said:
As I recall it was a Romanian lady and her friend who were off to attend a wedding in Romania from Luton Airport. They ran to get an extinguisher from a lower floor but then wisely decided to leave the scene.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. I'll ask again, omitting the references, since they seem to distract you.

Now, let's try the fourth one.

  • The pictured vehicle has a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
  • The driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful.

Do you agree with (a) and (b) above as well?
 
phiwum said:
You didn't answer my question. I'll ask again, omitting the references, since they seem to distract you.

Now, let's try the fourth one.

  • The pictured vehicle has a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
  • The driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful.

Do you agree with (a) and (b) above as well?
Click to expand...

I neither agree nor disagree. I note it has been stated so. However, I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.
 
Vixen said:
I neither agree nor disagree. I note it has been stated so. However, I like to have full facts not already known factoids put out here and there.
Click to expand...

You do not regard the press release from the fire department as evidence that the driver of the initial vehicle attempted but failed to extinguish the fire?

And you don't have any opinion on whether there is a fire extinguisher in photo 1 in this post? Because that's the photo of the "pictured" vehicle we're discussing. This is your post from November 6. In it, you clearly claim that there is an extinguisher to the right of the vehicle.

How come you're being coy here? You said the photo showed an extinguisher and now you're reluctant to come to the same conclusion.

I'll tell you what. We'll make a compromise.
  • The pictured vehicle seems to have a fire extinguisher on the ground next to it.
  • The Fire Brigade press release reports that the driver of the initial vehicle attempted to extinguish the fire and was unsuccessful.
Do you agree with the two above statements?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom