Reply to: Greed is Good!

[hyperD]

This is fun:

Boris Johnson fails live 'IQ test' | Politics | theguardian.com

This is even better!

Like all politicians, what a mendacious c u n t.

[Old Greg]

This is fun:

Boris Johnson fails live 'IQ test' | Politics | theguardian.com

[Old Greg]

If correlation doesn't mean causation how does - "But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system"?

There are other factors at play here.

Don't do it, SueEllen.

[Old Greg]

25 pages and you can't decide if greed is good or not?

I hope the suggestion that Boris is a cretin will stay unchallenged.

Why? What's he said now?

[SueEllen]

All I said was that

1. Correlation does not mean causation. If I wear a hat it doesn't mean its cold, it could be another reason such as fashion or I have lost my hair.
So below subsitence level poverty causing crime is justifiable. But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system.

If correlation doesn't mean causation how does - "But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system"?

There are other factors at play here.

[AtW]

25 pages and you can't decide if greed is good or not?

I hope the suggestion that Boris is a cretin will stay unchallenged.

[lilelvis2000]

It is entirely logically possible for everyone to be equal to each other in terms of their worth as human beings. You may or may not agree that this is in fact the case.

If you mean that it is not logically possible for everyone to have an equal economic outcome, you are right. But nobody on the left has been aiming for that since utopian socialism went out of fashion in about 1830. KEEP UP!

Yeah I think he was going on about not just economic outcome but also social standing..since so much more of how people are measured is now coming down to wealth. Like "Sure he was a fine statesman, but he died penniless. So how good could he really have been? Oh god, and he lived in that tiny one room flat as well. tsk tsk tsk"

[Bunk]

FTFY

Well, it worked with Scooper

[Old Greg]

Feck me it's even worse than I thought.
You're a prime example of why emigration is completely and utterly necessary.

FTFY

[sasguru]

I'm sure I do need more statistical expertise. I was just trying to ask a question and make a point.

The 196 countries are a population.

We spoke about a sample of that small population.

Even if you looked at all 196 and tried to draw such a conclusion from them (like my US presidents analogy) very little would make sense because its too small a population to ask anything so general about except proven facts.

So in my Presidents Analogy 100% have been Male, 2.3% have been visibly Black but I'm not sure how you demonstrate that their attitude to X has affected Y as a whole without studying each individually and adding corrections for salient facts such as social mores at the time.

If people believe that you can do so then please explain why.

As I said more data would make it better.

appreciate your comments though my use of non specific words incorrectly could well have confused the congregation.

Feck me it's even worse than I thought.
You're a prime example of why immigration is completely and utterly necessary.

[vetran]

Because the 50 countries are not a population, they're a sample. All the countries in the world is the population. I think that's what Sas was trying to tell you. Not knowing those terms indicates that maybe you actually do need a bit more statistical expertise.

I'm sure I do need more statistical expertise. I was just trying to ask a question and make a point.

The 196 countries are a population.

We spoke about a sample of that small population.

Even if you looked at all 196 and tried to draw such a conclusion from them (like my US presidents analogy) very little would make sense because its too small a population to ask anything so general about except proven facts.

So in my Presidents Analogy 100% have been Male, 2.3% have been visibly Black but I'm not sure how you demonstrate that their attitude to X has affected Y as a whole without studying each individually and adding corrections for salient facts such as social mores at the time.

If people believe that you can do so then please explain why.

As I said more data would make it better.

appreciate your comments though my use of non specific words incorrectly could well have confused the congregation.

[Bunk]

All I said was that

1. Correlation does not mean causation. If I wear a hat it doesn't mean its cold, it could be another reason such as fashion or I have lost my hair.
So below subsitence level poverty causing crime is justifiable. But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system.

2. The countries were so small a population and so diverse saying look inequality increases crime sort of doesn't gel. This leading to inequality=crime conclusion is like saying x good US presidents habitually wore a hat therefore hat wearing makes a good President.

3. Why do countries vary so much?

4. More Data would make it more believable but I'm not convinced the right question is being asked.

none of those need massive statistical expertise to ask the question.

not sure why that is ignorant?

Because the 50 countries are not a population, they're a sample. All the countries in the world is the population. I think that's what Sas was trying to tell you. Not knowing those terms indicates that maybe you actually do need a bit more statistical expertise.

[vetran]

Think you need to do some reading on sampling and statistics, your posts are embarrassingly ignorant.

All I said was that

1. Correlation does not mean causation. If I wear a hat it doesn't mean its cold, it could be another reason such as fashion or I have lost my hair.
So below subsitence level poverty causing crime is justifiable. But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system.

2. The countries were so small a population and so diverse saying look inequality increases crime sort of doesn't gel. This leading to inequality=crime conclusion is like saying x good US presidents habitually wore a hat therefore hat wearing makes a good President.

3. Why do countries vary so much?

4. More Data would make it more believable but I'm not convinced the right question is being asked.

none of those need massive statistical expertise to ask the question.

not sure why that is ignorant?

[Mich the Tester]

There's 2 things that amuses (and amazes) me about the population of cretins:

1) their ability and will to pontificate ad nauseum about stuff they know nothing about
2) the absolute lack of self-knowledge about their limitations.

This is summed up quite nicely in Figure 1. I find it very noticeable when people discuss the subject of international migration, a subject on which I have read considerably more than one book and considerably more than one scientific study, given that Spatial Demography was a large part of my degree. But then it's a Poly degree, so I shouldn't pretend to know much more than your average Wail reader. In fact, it's a subject where the more you learn about it, the less certainty you have in what you think you know. That's why I prefer to ask critical questions instead of giving a very strong point of view.

Figure 1; illustrating the relation between knowledge of a subject and willingness to pontificate about it.

[russell]

so you believe if the entire population is 50 and you draw such a specific conclusion regardless of other factors then its valid?

As 50 countries is ~ 25% of the number of countries in the world then you are not talking about the whole population. As the countries also vary wildly in government, cultural history, religion and justice system you are comparing Apples with tapeworms.

Try the same with all life on Earth. If study the entire population then you should have a partial exoskeleton,feelers, lay eggs and sport part of an udder

Your conclusions sound like chop suey to me!

Think you need to do some reading on sampling and statistics, your posts are embarrassingly ignorant.