plonk...
"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bay Area D is the resident troll. He used a program called AniFirewll to
> change his IP address via proxies so it looked like he came from
> different states than his own. I am an acquaintance of his. He actually
> bragged about this trolling activity to me and showed off once when I
> was at his home.
>
Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote
> Bay Area D is the resident troll. He used a program called AniFirewll to
> change his IP address via proxies so it looked like he came from
> different states than his own. I am an acquaintance of his. He actually
> bragged about this trolling activity to me and showed off once when I
> was at his home.
>
>
I think the OP is referring to the "AntiFirewall 1.10" anonymizing
software. Powerful program:
http://www.antifirewall.com
Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> He actually > bragged about this trolling activity to me and showed off once when I was at his home.
Were you both naked at the time.
I don't have any insane acquaintances. You are one strange wacko...
dave
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Bay Area D is the resident troll. He used a program called AniFirewll to
> change his IP address via proxies so it looked like he came from
> different states than his own. I am an acquaintance of his. He actually
> bragged about this trolling activity to me and showed off once when I
> was at his home.
>
On 17-Dec-2003, Alan McClure <[email protected]> wrote:
> How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
> of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
> 1 person with an IQ of 110?
That's not a population, that's a sample. But then Tom should
have said "half the people in the world..."
Mike
And a skewed sample, at that. But no, I mean 1/2 the people_you_ know are below
average for that particular group, in purely mathematical terms. I'd never
disparage a sampling of anyone's friends and relatives by using the term
"average" for personality, looks, wealth, ability, IQ, etc. or nothin'. Tom
>Michael Daly wrote
>That's not a population, that's a sample. But then Tom should
>have said "half the people in the world..."
>
>Mike
>On 17-Dec-2003, Alan McClure <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
>> of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
>> 1 person with an IQ of 110?
Someday, it'll all be over....
On 17-Dec-2003, [email protected] (Tom) wrote:
> But no, I mean 1/2 the people_you_ know are below
> average for that particular group, in purely mathematical terms.
Not true in general - only true for symmetric distributions and
a subset of others.
There's no reason to believe that a random sample of folks I
know are symmetrically distributed in intelligence. That's
not even true for the whole population, since you can't
have a negative IQ (though politicians come to mind...).
However, there appears to be an upper limit as well, so
there may be a reasonable expectation of symmetry with
6 gigapersons to choose from.
Mike
No-one said anything about intelligence...
>There's no reason to believe that a random sample of folks I
>know are symmetrically distributed in intelligence.
Of course not, but given a multitude of qualifiers, not just intelligence,
you'll come to a symmetrical distribution. And I'm just having fun quoting some
comedian, anyway.
>However, there appears to be an
upper limit as well, so
>there may be a reasonable expectation of symmetry with
>6 gigapersons to choose from.
It'll all average out! Tom
Someday, it'll all be over....
Remember: Half the people you know are below average. Tom
>Subject: Re:
Crazy "Nomen" get some therapy
>From: Bay Area Dave [email protected]
>Date: 12/09/2003 4:31 PM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>I don't have any insane acquaintances. You are one strange wacko...
>
>dave
>
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> Bay Area D is the resident troll. He used a program called AniFirewll to
>> change his IP address via proxies so it looked like he came from
>> different states than his own. I am an acquaintance of his. He actually
>> bragged about this trolling activity to me and showed off once when I
>> was at his home.
Someday, it'll all be over....
Please forgive my late-night rantings. Humor was never one of my strong points.
That said, who's to say what average is, especially how it's quantified? It's
all relative to the sampled group at hand. But in the instance of ">99 people
with an IQ of >100 and 1 person with an IQ of 110?"
I'll submit to your unrealistic hypothetical situation. ; ) Hey, look! My
first emoticon!
>From: Alan McClure [email protected]
>Date: 12/17/2003 10:26 AM US Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>Tom wrote:
>
>> Remember: Half the people you know are below average. Tom
>>
>
>Not necessarily true.
>
>How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
>of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
>1 person with an IQ of 110?
>
>ARM ;-)
Someday, it'll all be over....
John Grossbohlin wrote:
> "Alan McClure" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Tom wrote:
> >
> > > Remember: Half the people you know are below average. Tom
> > >
> >
> > Not necessarily true.
> >
> > How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
> > of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
> > 1 person with an IQ of 110?
> >
> > ARM ;-)
> >
>
> It seems to me that, by design, a validated IQ test has a mean (average) of
> 100 and a standard deviation of 15... normally distributed. For example, 66%
> of the population would have an IQ between 85 and 115; 14% between 70 and 85
> and another 14% between 115 and 130; 2% between 55 and 70 and 2% between 130
> and 145 ; .1% less than 55 and .1% over 145.
>
> However, the chances that any given sample of 99 people exactly matches the
> population's normal curve isn't high. Perhaps to put it in context for any
> given individual: Assuming that the heuristic "you are who your friends are"
> is true, if you feel you hang out with idiots you probably are one too.
> Hmmm... probably time to change jobs... the wreck... runs hot and cold. ;-)
>
> John
> ...actually been thinking about this lately!
Wow!! I feel like I kicked over an ants nest!
1. "population" would be correct if these people were the only people on an
island or in a small town.
2. I'm well aware that the "sample" is skewed. Would it have been better if
I had used consultant pay rates?
3. The origin of this particular example of "strange averages" was pointed
out by Marilyn vos Savant when someone wrote in to her and asked
how a politician could promise that 90% of the people would have
above average pay after he was elected.
ARM
Heeheee! Well, all this has been therapy for me! Lies, damn lies, and
statistics. And semantics. Tom
Alan McClure wrote:
>Wow!! I feel like I kicked over an ants nest!
>
>1. "population" would be correct if these people were the only people on an
> island or in a small town.
>2. I'm well aware that the "sample" is skewed. Would it have been better if
> I had used consultant pay rates?
>3. The origin of this particular example of "strange averages" was pointed
> out by Marilyn vos Savant when someone wrote in to her and asked
> how a politician could promise that 90% of the people would have
> above average pay after he was elected.
>
>ARM
Someday, it'll all be over....
"Alan McClure" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
snip
>
> Wow!! I feel like I kicked over an ants nest!
>
Fun isn't it? ;-)
snip
> I had used consultant pay rates?
> 3. The origin of this particular example of "strange averages" was pointed
> out by Marilyn vos Savant when someone wrote in to her and asked
> how a politician could promise that 90% of the people would have
> above average pay after he was elected.
I could spin that... even within the same sample 90% of the people at T2
could be making above the average at T1... which over a 5-10 year period
would probably have happened whether he won or not. The politician probably
was vague enough that that point was missed.
Also, a few high earners could move the average significantly..., e.g., Bill
Gates moves to town. Median would be more meaningful.
This kind of spin reminds me of when I talked to the director of a PhD
program. He told me "half the graduates go into consulting and half into
teaching." It was only later that I found out there had only been two
graduates to that point! At that point I wasn't tuned in enough to ask the
follow up question... today I'd be all over him. ;-)
John
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
> of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
> 1 person with an IQ of 110?
>
Since IQ follows a normal curve with no skew (mean, median, and mode the
same), you'd have a heckof a time finding such a group unless you tested
and picked them deliberately :-).
And the "half under average" is the reason I shudder as all the
production line jobs get shipped overseas. How stable can a society be
when many workers in that half can't find jobs that pay enough to feed a
family?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
:>
:> How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
:> of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
:> 1 person with an IQ of 110?
:>
: Since IQ follows a normal curve with no skew (mean, median, and mode the
: same), you'd have a heckof a time finding such a group unless you tested
: and picked them deliberately :-).
Actually, IQ scores rise over time (the Flynn Effect), so the tests get
renormed every 15 years. See:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037F65-D9C0-1C6A-84A9809EC588EF21
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020053951.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.shtml
As a result, a person could score significantly higher
in one year than the next, if the renorming occurred in between.
So, in principle, you can find a group of people who, on average, have
higher-than-average IQ scores.
: And the "half under average" is the reason I shudder as all the
: production line jobs get shipped overseas. How stable can a society be
: when many workers in that half can't find jobs that pay enough to feed a
: family?
Agreed.
- Andy Barss
"Alan McClure" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> > Remember: Half the people you know are below average. Tom
> >
>
> Not necessarily true.
>
> How many people have a "below average" IQ in a population
> of 99 people with an IQ of 100 and
> 1 person with an IQ of 110?
>
> ARM ;-)
>
It seems to me that, by design, a validated IQ test has a mean (average) of
100 and a standard deviation of 15... normally distributed. For example, 66%
of the population would have an IQ between 85 and 115; 14% between 70 and 85
and another 14% between 115 and 130; 2% between 55 and 70 and 2% between 130
and 145 ; .1% less than 55 and .1% over 145.
However, the chances that any given sample of 99 people exactly matches the
population's normal curve isn't high. Perhaps to put it in context for any
given individual: Assuming that the heuristic "you are who your friends are"
is true, if you feel you hang out with idiots you probably are one too.
Hmmm... probably time to change jobs... the wreck... runs hot and cold. ;-)
John
...actually been thinking about this lately!