
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stats 101: Chapter 4</title>
	<link>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/</link>
	<description>"All manner of statistical analyses cheerfully undertaken."</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike D.</title>
		<link>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-7228</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 May 2008 03:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-7228</guid>
		<description>TV meteorologists are ignorant about all the above. They must be. A million times a day they say, "The temperature was below (above) normal for today's date." No it wasn't. It may have been below (above) AVERAGE, but they never say that. Must be something in the Meteorologist Oath of Allegiance to always say "normal" and never say "average."

They could show the distribution, and pinpoint today's temp in the graph, but that would be too intelligent. Better to dumb it down to caveman terms. Lot's of hairspray, no gray matter. No wonder they go all wild-eyed about global warming. 

The stock market report is no better. "Today the Dow Jones gained 100 points," the TV talking heads say. So what? Put it in context, please. Show the time series graph for the past year. Again, too much information overloads the single-digit neurons they're packing.

That doesn't stop them from drawing weird coincidences, though. "Today a poodle won the Westminster Dog Show, and the stock market gained 100 points." Or, "Today the Queen of England had a wart removed, and the stock market lost 100 points." These occurrences possibly might not be related, but you wouldn't know that from the report.

This kind of thing is symptomatic of a culture on the way down. It's a slippery slope, and we're gaining speed downhill. Reinforcing ignorance is the style, and compounded, wholesale ignorance is the result.

Matt, I applaud you for trying to arrest the rapid descent. It might help. though, if we shot all the TV journalists. Or attached electric shock collars to meteorologists so that they get a jolt whenever they use the word "normal." I want to man the button, too. Take that -- zzzzottt!!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TV meteorologists are ignorant about all the above. They must be. A million times a day they say, &#8220;The temperature was below (above) normal for today&#8217;s date.&#8221; No it wasn&#8217;t. It may have been below (above) AVERAGE, but they never say that. Must be something in the Meteorologist Oath of Allegiance to always say &#8220;normal&#8221; and never say &#8220;average.&#8221;</p>
<p>They could show the distribution, and pinpoint today&#8217;s temp in the graph, but that would be too intelligent. Better to dumb it down to caveman terms. Lot&#8217;s of hairspray, no gray matter. No wonder they go all wild-eyed about global warming. </p>
<p>The stock market report is no better. &#8220;Today the Dow Jones gained 100 points,&#8221; the TV talking heads say. So what? Put it in context, please. Show the time series graph for the past year. Again, too much information overloads the single-digit neurons they&#8217;re packing.</p>
<p>That doesn&#8217;t stop them from drawing weird coincidences, though. &#8220;Today a poodle won the Westminster Dog Show, and the stock market gained 100 points.&#8221; Or, &#8220;Today the Queen of England had a wart removed, and the stock market lost 100 points.&#8221; These occurrences possibly might not be related, but you wouldn&#8217;t know that from the report.</p>
<p>This kind of thing is symptomatic of a culture on the way down. It&#8217;s a slippery slope, and we&#8217;re gaining speed downhill. Reinforcing ignorance is the style, and compounded, wholesale ignorance is the result.</p>
<p>Matt, I applaud you for trying to arrest the rapid descent. It might help. though, if we shot all the TV journalists. Or attached electric shock collars to meteorologists so that they get a jolt whenever they use the word &#8220;normal.&#8221; I want to man the button, too. Take that &#8212; zzzzottt!!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Briggs</title>
		<link>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-6572</link>
		<dc:creator>Briggs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 09:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-6572</guid>
		<description>I mistype "lose" and "loss" all the time, dammit.   It's one of those typos/mistakes  that I have been unable to eradicate.

Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mistype &#8220;lose&#8221; and &#8220;loss&#8221; all the time, dammit.   It&#8217;s one of those typos/mistakes  that I have been unable to eradicate.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Sharpe</title>
		<link>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-6566</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Sharpe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 08:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-6566</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;It?s unlikely that CMU will &lt;b&gt;loss&lt;/b&gt; or win every game&lt;/i&gt;

That should be &lt;b&gt;lose&lt;/b&gt;, at least in the version of English I speak. It is in the PDF as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>It?s unlikely that CMU will <b>loss</b> or win every game</i></p>
<p>That should be <b>lose</b>, at least in the version of English I speak. It is in the PDF as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike D.</title>
		<link>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-6546</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 04:15:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/05/18/stats-101-chapter-4/#comment-6546</guid>
		<description>Very nice. I like this chapter the best so far. 

Oooh, oooh, I have an answer to Q. 11: every GD weather report ever given on TV or radio!!!!!!!!

"The temp or rainfall today was normal, or above normal, or below normal," makes me groan inwardly every time I hear it. So I have stopped watching or listening to weather reports. I would rather NOT KNOW than listen that phrase again. There is something satisfactorily mysterious about not knowing, but the main reason I avoid weather reports is avoidance of statistical/psychic PAIN.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very nice. I like this chapter the best so far. </p>
<p>Oooh, oooh, I have an answer to Q. 11: every GD weather report ever given on TV or radio!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>&#8220;The temp or rainfall today was normal, or above normal, or below normal,&#8221; makes me groan inwardly every time I hear it. So I have stopped watching or listening to weather reports. I would rather NOT KNOW than listen that phrase again. There is something satisfactorily mysterious about not knowing, but the main reason I avoid weather reports is avoidance of statistical/psychic PAIN.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.918 seconds -->
