RSS Feed
  0 users browsing Discussion. | 2 guests | 6 bots  
Main » Discussion » Something about cheese!
Pages: First Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12
Posted on 19-07-08, 19:25
Post: #84 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 4 days
This does not make sense.



As per your own observations - females and males both have a bell curve distribution (ish). Both with a clearly distinguished differing mean.

We have established there is a difference. Now you are telling me they have the same mean? My head hurts, but whatever.
Posted on 19-07-08, 19:48
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #481 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
No, I am not saying that they have the same means. To be clear here, I am saying they have different means and that women are less competent than men.

The study is saying men and women have the same means and are equally competent. The study aims to prove this by creating a model where they have the same means but still have differences at the top.

You can't just claim that men and women are equally competent, however, and then come up with a model where men have an average score a standard deviation above women and call it a day, unless of course you want to argue that women are as competent as men but still get lower scores.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-07-09, 07:25
Post: #85 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 4 days
Re-read the study carefully. Now you are just making shit up again.

There is an established gap already, and that gap will be reflected in means. For any study to make the claim you are proposing it would have been shot dead at review and laughed out of the room, since it is statistics 101.

The only rebuttal article - and this is a quite controversial opinion mind you, so for it to only have a single rebuttal piece is in itself a testament of strength - attacks the method for predicting too high numbers. This does not matter however, as it predicts both pools as equally wrong and the purpose is not to predict skill, but skill gap. The model may need some calibration for sure, but is otherwise fine.

So, nope. Just another case of illiteracy. We are done now. :)
Posted on 19-07-09, 09:09 (revision 2)
Custom title here

Post: #558 of 866
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 14 hours
Last view: 1 hour
You're missing the most important detail, though. Women are genetically inferior to men, and thus inherently worse at chess.
</sarcasm>

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-07-09, 12:09
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #484 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
Posted by wertigon
Re-read the study carefully. Now you are just making shit up again.

There is an established gap already, and that gap will be reflected in means. For any study to make the claim you are proposing it would have been shot dead at review and laughed out of the room, since it is statistics 101.

That study is riddled with mathematical and grammatical errors. So whatever review process they have appears to mostly be a rubber-stamp one, or else they'd have been told to fix them before publishing. Psychology does have infamously lax review standards, after all.
(this doesn't necessarily mean all psych studies are wrong, nor that all sloppy studies are wrong, but it means you can't blindly trust the review process.)

But it does indeed make that claim:
Even if two groups have the same average (mean) and variability (s.d.), the highest performing individuals are more likely to come from the larger group.
This is their explanation. Nothing about means being different, it expressly only deals with the differences at the tails.
In the end too, they mention nothing about different means:
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.

If they'd have used different male and female means, they'd have said so, right? Then it'd have said "populations" or some such. It seems you make a claim vastly different from the article's. Which I'd be fine to discuss, but you can't claim it has anything to do with the results of the so-called study.

Can you point to anywhere in the study where they suggest the means should be different?
The only rebuttal article - and this is a quite controversial opinion mind you, so for it to only have a single rebuttal piece is in itself a testament of strength - attacks the method for predicting too high numbers. This does not matter however, as it predicts both pools as equally wrong and the purpose is not to predict skill, but skill gap. The model may need some calibration for sure, but is otherwise fine.

So, nope. Just another case of illiteracy. We are done now. :)

That there's not any rebuttal articles doesn't mean too much. If the study is poorly done, it remains this whether it has one or a hundred rebuttal articles, and if the study is well done, it remains this whether it has one or a hundred rebuttal articles too.

It levies another more striking criticism, my main gripe, that of the model not fitting well. If participation rates alone explained it, then the woman with female rank k should have an expected total rank of k*(n/nf). And with statistical methods, you can apparently calculate a confidence interval. Regardless, it's apparent that that model doesn't fit all too well:


For instance, if you had 50 men and 50 women, then the fifth best woman should have the tenth best overall ranking provided their scores were drawn from the same distribution. If you had 50 men and 10 women, the second best woman should have about the same ranking as the tenth best man. And if they don't, then the scores aren't drawn from the same distribution, which was my claim all along.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-07-09, 19:02
Post: #86 of 130
Since: 11-24-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 4 days
Just... Stop. Go see a statistics professor at your local college/university and point them towards the study, if you have any more questions about it.

Your ignorance is painfully obvious and I've got better things to do than explain every single nuance where you are wrong. 'Nuff said.
Posted on 19-07-10, 11:38

Post: #145 of 210
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 185 days
Last view: 157 days
I'll second that notion.
Posted on 19-07-10, 13:40
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #487 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
It is considered customary to at least point out the broad strokes of the error, even if one is too busy to give a more in-depth explanation.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-07-10, 14:10
Full mod

Post: #299 of 394
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 29 days
Last view: 8 hours
You've been arguing with wertigon for nearly six pages of this twelve-page thread. If you have not yet perceived the broad strokes of your errors, I don't think things will suddenly become clear just by asking one more time.

Stash this conversation in the back of your mind and think about it again in five years' time or so, and see if anything you've learned in the intervening time makes it less confusing.

The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Posted on 19-07-11, 16:41 (revision 1)

Post: #62 of 88
Since: 11-04-18

Last post: 191 days
Last view: 191 days
Posted by Screwtape
You've been arguing with wertigon for nearly six pages of this twelve-page thread. If you have not yet perceived the broad strokes of your errors, I don't think things will suddenly become clear just by asking one more time.

Stash this conversation in the back of your mind and think about it again in five years' time or so, and see if anything you've learned in the intervening time makes it less confusing.


also agree with this.
Posted on 19-07-11, 20:14
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #489 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
No, I expressed myself clumsily. I do understand the assertion that is being made ("differences in participation rates explain differences in means"), what I don't understand is by which mechanism this would work - a study has been linked which explains differences at the tails, but I can't see how this would have any bearing on the means. The "broad strokes" of the latter effect is what I'm talking about. This has not been discussed for six pages or anywhere close to it.

An analogy: I understand how a smaller country's top ten high earners' average income would be lower than those of a bigger but equally rich country, or for that of matter a substantially bigger but poorer country. What I don't understand is how the smaller country would have a lower median income than its equally rich but bigger counterpart. This seems completely counter-intuitive and is not an effect I have ever heard of. And I would appreciate a pointer, for instance if there is a name for it, or if it's mentioned in passing in some article.

If the point is that these types of matters are not acceptable to discuss, or for that matter if you just think that it's an unacceptable derail, then that's another thing entirely and I understand - your forum, your rules, and it does seem like the discussion, or at least my position on the matter, could be construed to be in violation of them, specifically Don't 3b. ("... discriminating ... remarks are not welcome on this board.")

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-08-13, 14:26
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #574 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
https://twitter.com/AlexandreKrausz/status/1160947525442056193

With the British preoccupied with Brexit, it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out how they will react (i.e. not at all)

So do you think they will pull a Tiananmen? Is there anywhere you can bet money?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-08-16, 13:24 (revision 2)

Post: #80 of 88
Since: 11-04-18

Last post: 191 days
Last view: 191 days
I don't believe it will be another Tiananmen, at least i hope so. honestly as much as I support hongkongers i don't see what can HK do as mainland china has most of the power. tienanmen was more than 30 years ago and is still being censored

what beijing really dreads the most i think is for the protests and more importantly the opposition to the CPC to "invade" mainland china, if it reach a certain critical mass and they lose control
Posted on 19-08-24, 02:17 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #579 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
If that does happen, then can't the PRC act with impunity? It's only with regard to Hong Kong that they have to maintain a thin veneer of legitimacy, on the mainland they can do whatever they want.

What the West could do is realize that this kind of stuff will only ever get worse if they do nothing and then proceed to back Hong Kong. Which, obviously, it will not do but will rather proceed to eventually suffer the same fate as Africa. But they could and should do that, I think.

EDIT: A new challenger appears! And the Federal Reserve are even closing ranks behind their country! I am feeling optimistic about the future!

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-08-25, 18:04 (revision 1)

Post: #81 of 88
Since: 11-04-18

Last post: 191 days
Last view: 191 days
well yeah, it is an authoritarian system after all. the only reason i doubt they'd want another tiananmen is because it'd be an international PR disaster for them. Regarding mainland china: there's certainly political repression happening but i think there's a lot of mainland chinese people just being ok with the system and just really not caring about this democracy thing.

also during the handover in 1997, HK represented nearly a fifth of china's total GDP. Now it's only a fraction of that so HK is less valuable economically to china. so that could have something to do with the way they're now handling HK. still, i doubt china will ever want to let HK be independent even if HK eventually lose its economical value
Posted on 19-08-25, 18:13
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #608 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 72 days
Last view: 70 days
The handover is when it all went wrong. They should have given it over to Taiwan instead. Would have solved all their problems and then some, without violating the actual treaty. I really don't get why they did it - the SU had fallen, so they didn't really have any need for China anymore.

I guess it follows whatever happened to them as caused by that since then they had coming. Man, what is it with the UK and more or less openly supporting their own enemies?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Pages: First Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12
Main » Discussion » Something about cheese!
Yes, it's an ad.