What's new
By:

Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Zombie said:
Or people become dismissive when they disagree, but don't feel like it's worth arguing about. At least that's been my experience.
Click to expand...

Weird how he doesn't think the very basic fallacy he's making is not worth discussing. I thought he maybe didn't know what he was talking about. But no, it's probably just his disagreements. He doesn't have the time to dazzle us with his deep statistical understanding.
 
Siro said:
Weird how he doesn't think the very basic fallacy he's making is not worth discussing. I thought he maybe didn't know what he was talking about. But no, it's probably just his disagreements. He doesn't have the time to dazzle us with his deep statistical understanding.
Click to expand...

The fallacy is this: You're not using truly accurate data in the first place. It's all self reported, which is not the best way to measure anything.

The model you appear to be using, axing an outlier, is reserved for truly quantifiable data. IE; a pool of patients with a median stay cost of 12k, but an average stay cost of 34k. That's when you axe the outlier that has a stay in the 200k range to get viable data. In less quantifiable means of analytics(polls), you should be just taking all of the data and doing the numbers. Just with a grain of salt.

The only problem here, is that you think it's important to argue over. I'm not trying to convince you to think differently, I'm simply saying I don't care to correct you, and it won't matter if I do or don't.
 
Harambe said:
The fallacy is this: You're not using truly accurate data in the first place. It's all self reported, which is not the best way to measure anything.

The model you appear to be using, axing an outlier, is reserved for truly quantifiable data. IE; a pool of patients with a median stay cost of 12k, but an average stay cost of 34k. That's when you axe the outlier that has a stay in the 200k range to get viable data. In less quantifiable means of analytics(polls), you should be just taking all of the data and doing the numbers. Just with a grain of salt.

The only problem here, is that you think it's important to argue over. I'm not trying to convince you to think differently, I'm simply saying I don't care to correct you, and it won't matter if I do or don't.
Click to expand...

Gibberish. You used the poll as a fact, and didn't take anything with a grain of salt.

Disapproval rate of 60%. Nearly half of all Americans believe we should start the impeachment process.

Let that sink in.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that the poll is an outlier and doesn't match with the other polls during the same period. You used it because it shows the numbers that you like. I thought maybe you looked into the poll and was going to provide an answer similar to the post by BP about why the questions and trends point to the poll being meaningful. You didn't. And you still haven't. And now I suspect you can't. I don't even know what this response you gave is.
 
Siro said:
Gibberish. You used the poll as a fact, and didn't take anything with a grain of salt.



I pointed out that the poll is an outlier and doesn't match with the other polls during the same period. You used it because it shows the numbers that you like. I thought maybe you looked into the poll and was going to provide an answer similar to the post by BP about why the questions and trends point to the poll being meaningful. You didn't. And you still haven't. And now I suspect you can't. I don't even know what this response you gave is.
Click to expand...

I didn't use a poll as a fact, I used a fact that there's polling data. You pushed it up a notch.
 
Zombie said:
I'm struggling to understand what this even means. Have a good one man.
Click to expand...

It means you saw someone attacking Trump, and another challenging that attack, and you automatically jumped in to help your teammate. It's pretty obvious.
 
Harambe said:
I didn't use a poll as a fact, I used a fact that there's polling data. You pushed it up a notch.
Click to expand...

I quoted you. That's the nice thing about the modern world, it's more difficult to lie when we have records of everything. But no carry on with that stuff about outliers with quantifiable numerical data or whatever mindnumbing nonsense you were saying.
 
No wonder Trump is president given the level of discourse by the average person.

RIP human intellect.
 
Siro said:
It means you saw someone attacking Trump, and another challenging that attack, and you automatically jumped in to help your teammate. It's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
Or... it means I contributed to the threads purpose?

60% disapproval rating, and half of all Americans believing we should start impeachment now is relevant. Talking a whole lot of **** because you misunderstood what the thread was about is your problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top