ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:15 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Another thing, Tamayo: how can you compare the popularity of Shakespear to a mathematician?

How about comparing them to, say, oh, I don't know...wait, I really don't know, because there are like 0 mathematicians that are well known, with the possible exception of Newton.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
nick012000 wrote:
The bell curve of male mathematical skill has a higher mean than the female one, but that doesn't stop either of them from having tiny numbers of individuals outstanding individuals.

That is the kind of misapplication of statistics we're talking about; how can you quantify them as outliers (ie significantly different from nearly all of the population) if you don't provide any higher order statistics (variance, confidence, skew, etc)? First order statistics like mean and median only provide measures of the "center" of the distribution. I suspect that the separation between the means is negligible compared to the variance.


The Man In Black wrote:
Doesn't seem as sufficient proof to me that any statistics the noob brings up must be faulty, unless you mean and implication derived from this theory, in which case you should point that out and provide the theory as supporting evidence to this, rather than just the theory. Or perhaps you mean an alternate form of Bayes' Theory and an implication from that. Either way, saying 'lolz bAyes' theorY' doesn't constitute a refutation to any rational person.

A nicer way to write Bayes is:
Pr(A|B)Pr(B) = Pr(A,B) = Pr(B|A)Pr(A)
which is read as: "The probability of A given B times the probability of B is the joint probability of both A and B".

It seems pretty clear to me that the implication was that one must make sure that any correlated variables in the population must be accounted for before trying to apply statistics drawn from the population. In this case, how does one separate the effects of socialization form the effects of sex?


Forevergrey wrote:
That is irrelevent. She is making claims based on a theorem, it is not our job to go looking for the theroem, it is her job to present this theorem to us, instead of being all "lawlz, hi, heres two words I may or may not have made up, why dont you go find out"

Everyone who has taken a stats or probability course knows Bayes. It's common knowledge and if you want to debate the applicability of statistics, you shouldn't complain about not knowing it. That is entirely your own problem.


MiB wrote:
How about comparing them to, say, oh, I don't know...wait, I really don't know, because there are like 0 mathematicians that are well known, with the possible exception of Newton.

Or ... hmmm
Pythagoras, Euclid, Des Cartes, Fermat, Gauss, Euler, Godel, Turing and Shannon to name just some of the <i>most</i> famous mathematicians.

Of course, the argument was about inherent female linguistic skill vs. inherent male mathematical skill. It's relevant to point out that most of the women in 'hard sciences' do not perform worse then the men. They perform about the same; there's just fewer of them. This points to a social condition instead of a biological one. Women are not particularly encouraged to enter the sciences, so most don't gain aptitude for them.


nick012000 wrote:
Quote:
Really, the noob was in the wrong here as well,

Really? How?


Basically you've made a large number of pseudo-scientific claims for biology-as-destiny.
1. That really is NOT the topic of this thread. Read page one, post one.
2. That argument is widely held to be mostly (but not totally) invalid, at least in part because it relies on a number of sweeping generalizations.
3. Your statements lacked support in this debate. (Aside from a book most of us haven't read and aren't willing to pay to read)

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 3:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Thin: Are any of those mathematicians, you know, household names or in any degree as popular as, say, Shakespear?

That is what I meant. The most famous mathematicians arn't nearly as famous, not even in the same ballpark, as Shakespear. Comparing Shakespear to female mathematicians and saying that they are not as popular because they are female is erroneous reasoning, because the two are not very good in comparison to one another.

Thinman wrote:
I suspect that the separation between the means is negligible compared to the variance.


Aha! An actual claim that we can work with now.

I suspect male variences are higher than female variences, and females are concentrated around the mean or median.

(See, isn't it fun to play the 'I suspect without any evidence wotsoeva' game?)

Moving on to be serious tho as Thin brings up a good point...

Okay, how about the noob supplies the data (if there is any) and we see, if there is no data covering this then the evidence isn't applicable in the specific case of why there are so few woman who're good at math.

The data shouldn't be too hard to find, a quick google away etc.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:54 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Thinman wrote:
Forevergrey wrote:
"]That is irrelevent. She is making claims based on a theorem, it is not our job to go looking for the theroem, it is her job to present this theorem to us, instead of being all "lawlz, hi, heres two words I may or may not have made up, why dont you go find out"

Everyone who has taken a stats or probability course knows Bayes. It's common knowledge and if you want to debate the applicability of statistics, you shouldn't complain about not knowing it. That is entirely your own problem.


So lets see, if I haven't taken a specific course then my opinion on anything is entirely invalid. I should of COURSE know every obscure term in every aspect of every mathematic discipline and no-one is obligated to explain themselves. Naturally, because if I am unaware of a particular concept because I have chosen some other disipline for my career path them I must be all "OMG I R TEH DUMB"

Fuck you, Thinman, take your elitism elsewhere. In a thread that focuses on another form of elitism it is highly ironic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Forevergrey wrote:
Fuck you, Thinman, take your elitism elsewhere. In a thread that focuses on another form of elitism it is highly ironic.


This statement coming from you is also, highly, ironic.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Skjie wrote:
This statement coming from you [Grey] is also, highly, ironic


If making fun of stupid people is elitism, I don't ever want to be anything but an elitist.

But yea, there is a difference between 'you are stupid because your reasoning is fucktarded' and 'if you do not know x piece of information you are obviously stupid.'

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:40 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Forevergrey wrote:
Thinman wrote:
Forevergrey wrote:
"]That is irrelevent. She is making claims based on a theorem, it is not our job to go looking for the theroem, it is her job to present this theorem to us, instead of being all "lawlz, hi, heres two words I may or may not have made up, why dont you go find out"

Everyone who has taken a stats or probability course knows Bayes. It's common knowledge and if you want to debate the applicability of statistics, you shouldn't complain about not knowing it. That is entirely your own problem.


So lets see, if I haven't taken a specific course then my opinion on anything is entirely invalid. I should of COURSE know every obscure term in every aspect of every mathematic discipline and no-one is obligated to explain themselves. Naturally, because if I am unaware of a particular concept because I have chosen some other disipline for my career path them I must be all "OMG I R TEH DUMB"

Oh, I see what happened. I mentally combined MiB's statements about the need for well supported and qualified statistics and Grey's complaining about a lack of definition. Together they make for a rather strange combination.

Sorry there Grey.


In any case, it's not a particularly obscure term. If you want to do more in the debate than taking the occasional potshot, I suggest you be prepared either to civilly ask for a clarification or to handle unfamiliar concepts on your own. Complaining about it is not a particularly good way to get a response.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:45 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
Even those of us with degrees in the social sciences, (like Me) who have passes stats courses, are unimpressed by statistics, perhaps we are especially unimpressed, since we know how easy they are to bullshit.

I'd like to interject that higher NATURAL testosterone levels are not significantly correlated with violence, violence in those with higher testosterone levels is generally related to Anabolic Steroids or glandular disorders.

In normal cases when a human male produces more testosterone, he produces more estrogen to counterbalance it. (this is why when men get off Anabolic Steroids, they grow breasts, because the testosterone drops off, but the estrogen stays up for a while.)

"Roid Rage" is most often found in the period of high UNNATURAL testosterone, when someone has just started taking Anabolic Steroids. Testosterone is not what causes the violence, IMBALANCE does.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group