Booms, Busts, and Recoveries Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: maceng2 who wrote (44814)	1/16/2004 9:19:06 AM
From: macavity	Read Replies (1) of 74559

PB I thought I said (I am not always sure) that you can say anything you want and have some stat to back it up. Again. If you are talking about populations and you make no reference to the distribution of a property within the population, then you are probably just arguing semantics, or most likely simply qualifying your own agenda. There are two properties here - sex and maths_ability. 'Good'? Did MW say what he qualified 'good' as. A 50th percentile score, a 75th percentile score, a 95th? I personally do not consider an/the average score as good, but that is me. I can see the point of both arguments which are what I would call zeroth order statements about the trial/experiment - i.e. "They say nothing about the distribution" I do not now at what percentile the ratio of good_men/total_men = good_women/total_women. At >50th (percentile) there are more women to men above and at >95th there are more men to women. We can pretty much say whatever we like if we do not have to qualify things. I thought my statemnt was well-qualified in what it claimed. If not, I apologise. I simply believe that you and MW are actually making different statements. -macavity (>99th percentile cynic)

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next