So, how long do we have to wait until racist & gay jokes are funny again?

Started by By Crom!21 pages
Originally posted by Strangelove
154 (at best) respondents in a member-based poll on a site with frivolous polls to begin with is not a representative sample. That claim, I believe, is irrefutable

No <1 is irrefutable in stats. You get that right? ❌

Goodnight. 😉

Originally posted by By Crom!
No <1 is irrefutable in stats. You get that right? ❌

Goodnight. 😉

I haven't a clue what the **** you're talking about, crazy man. I bid you good day

Originally posted by By Crom!
It's about using a sample to justify your comments. Now you have to provide "evidence" to refute his and prove his sample is not representative. Just saying it isn't and critiscising the methodology is not enough. Put up your evidence to provide an alternative.

🙂

That's how statistical arguments work. 🙂

Show the binomial distribution of his data is adversly skewed. Put up your error bars. 🙂 perform an ANOVA (woudn't work on this question). Do a Chi squared.

🙂

Numbers please.

Yes, a valid sample, which has not been given. See the many post from myself and others that refute his "statistics" as reliable fact.

Umm... I cannot prove a negative, that is not how it works, you're asking me to prove that "most white people aren't racist nor do they hide it". He made the claim, he claimed it as fact, it is HIS responsibility to prove it. Surely you know that...

but...but....the smilies

Originally posted by Strangelove
I haven't a clue what the **** you're talking about, crazy man. I bid you good day

Well in simple terms things have to be <1 or >1 to be relevant in stats either in a positive or negative fashion. I am getting the feeling you haven't done stats.

😉

Originally posted by By Crom!
No <1 is irrefutable in stats. You get that right? ❌

Goodnight. 😉

no. less than. one.

what the fuk does that mean?

Originally posted by By Crom!
Well in simple terms things have to be <1 or >1 to be relevant in stats either in a positive or negative fashion. I am getting the feeling you haven't done stats.

😉

I haven't. But statistics in and of themselves are quite simple. And if the poll sampling isn't reliable, then the poll results aren't reliable. And that's what we're talking about. The polls that FotN referenced. If you're not talking about that and are instead talking about the properties of Statistic as an abstract principle, then you're obviously not on the same wavelength as we are.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
no. less than. one.

what the fuk does that mean?


Buy a stats book and find out.

🙂

Originally posted by Strangelove
I haven't. But statistics in and of themselves are quite simple. And if the poll sampling isn't reliable, then the poll results aren't reliable. And that's what we're talking about. The polls that FotN referenced. If you're not talking about that and are instead talking about the properties of Statistic as an abstract principle, then you're obviously not on the same wavelength as we are.

Your post reveals yourself look up "significance" in stats you'll get what 1 means.

Goodnight 🙂

Originally posted by By Crom!
Buy a stats book and find out.

🙂

Or you could tell me and not be an @ss about it

Originally posted by By Crom!
Your post reveals yourself look up "significance" in stats you'll get what 1 means.

Goodnight 🙂

Your post reveals that you're not listening to a thing we say

Originally posted by Robtard
Would you please show where I am/was prejuduce, a bigot or racist?

You're stealing my lines Rob! 😛

It was Urizen who said that I was a biggot.

It was YOU who said that I couldn't use the word "may" or thank Fist as an insult for his prejuidice, bigotry, or racism.

I'm not calling you or Urizen bigots.

Are you again taking a simple post of mine and pulling some opposite meaning from it, or are you just being facetious?

By Crom!

Originally posted by Robtard
Like I said... His highest participant poll had 153 people, of those 80(79.56) leaned towards a racist point of view towards blacks. Even considering that every single one of those 80 people are white (which we do not know for sure), would you use 80 "white people" views as a basis to claim as fact that "most white people are racist and just hide it'?

Would you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Or you could tell me and not be an @ss about it

Significance

http://www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm

😉 its all about <1 in stats 🙂

While this logic passes the common sense test, the mathematics behind statistical significance do not actually guarantee that 1-p gives the exact probability that there is a difference is the population. Even so, many researchers treat 1-p as that probability anyway for two reasons. One is that no one has devised a better general-purpose measure. The other is that using this calculation will usually lead one to a useful interpretation of statistical significance numbers.

In some non-survey fields of research, the possibility that 1-p is not the exact probability that there is a difference in the population may be more important. In these fields, the use of statistical significance numbers may be controversial.

By the way you can't criticise methodology in stats without knowing a lot more detail than it's a website. That in itself might make it more or less random.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Indeed, we only have proof that if you don't support gay marriage you're born a biggot and a homophobe. 😛

Not that you are born one, only that you are one.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You're stealing my lines Rob! 😛

It was Urizen who said that I was a biggot.

It was YOU who said that I couldn't use the word "may" or thank Fist as an insult for his prejuidice, bigotry, or racism.

I'm not calling you or Urizen bigots.

Are you again taking a simple post of mine and pulling some opposite meaning from it, or are you just being facetious?

I must have misunderstood your post then... What was the point of your original response to my post that wasn't directed at you in the first place then?

Originally posted by Robtard
I must have misunderstood your post then... What was the point of your original response to my post that wasn't directed at you in the first place then?

Nothin.

Just bein' a smartass. 😛

(and a homophobic biggot, of course.)

Originally posted by By Crom!
Significance

😉 its all about <1 in stats 🙂

"In statistical terms, significant does not necessarily mean important."

"Check your sampling procedure to avoid bias." FotN's sample is extremely biased to only alow those w/ internet acess and does nothing to prevent trolls.

So his sample is not significant or any where near large enough.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not that you are born one, only that you are one.

Ladies and gentlemen.....

wisdom has arrived.

clapping

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In statistical terms, significant does not necessarily mean important.

Check your sampling procedure to avoid bias. FotN's sample is extremely biased to only alow those w/ internet acess and does nothing to prevent trolls.

So his sample is not significant or any where near large enough.

You can't criticise a sampling method without a lot more detail the fact it is a website may make it more or less random.

Actually it's significant within that number that's another issue. Size of sample group is significant only to that sample group.

and significance not being important is a probability issue, it means you don't get the nomenclature. 1 is the measure used. Probability affects it's importance.

🙂