C

Y

K

A

7

Yeah I think these guys answered your question. You should have second thoughts next time you are about to ask ESR for their mental health. It's like taking that survey to an asylum.

8=D

8======D

234 somewhere there

The real question is does ESR simply attract retarded people, or does it actually cause the retardation?

I vote we get that Brainie guy who wrote about the sociology of h4x to publish a full study...

if we look on the theory of Gaussian distribution, then theres no chance ESR attracts more of "retards". ESR as a part of population will get the same distribution as whole population.

i personally belive its not the "retards" that are the problem, but these wnb adults like qwih. These guys will continuously bash certain people who dont meet their standards, creating a illusion there are a lot of not mentally well people here.

lol u bothered to reply...

u really think a perfectly healthy adult is likely to bother write and post something as stupid as this poll idea?

i wanted to show off with my statistics knowledge :b

reasonable motive :)

right after you checked "gaussian" on urbandictionary ? :D

mwahahahahaha :D

I would reply to this thread if I was offended by it. Perfectly healthy adults get offended by things I think

It's obv. meant as a joke - cmon, esr is pretty retarded in some way, but that's why I come here

well it would be interesting to determine not how many retards are here but what percentage of people here would go for option 2) or 3) equalling the gamer-cliché.

People who disagree with me = retards.

i agree.

There is no definite guarantee that our distribution follows the normal distribution, even though it is a fair supposition. Even if it does, that does not denote automatically levelheadedness, because our bell curve may remain in higher spot than regularville's.

We will start by assuming esr is the same as the rest of the retarded world, but it's just the starting hypothesis. Statisticians will then run a test by comparing our supposed bell curve with the bell curve of the masses. This will give us the probability how likely a value will fit both curves. Small values denote that a model describes the reality poorly, thus leading to abandoning such hypothesis.

yes, if we actually wanted to check if esr distribution of attribute is normal, we would have to do kolmogorov test.

however as you noticed its safe assumption, as most of attributes in population have gaussian distribution

"its safe assumption"

No, he said it is the starting hypothesis which is supposed to be actively denied in favour of the alternative hypothesis. it´s like in court: the starting hypothesis is that you are innocent and only if there is lack of proof the judge will stick with it. Then there is the alpha-error which equals putting an innocent into prison. this error is supposed to be under control when you assign a probability of failure (eg 5%) and construct a significance niveau

correct me if i´m wrong just had my first statistics course this year.

no, you're correct. thats why i said we should do kolmogorov test, if we actually wanted to check the curve.

however, as I, and damian noticed, its very likely its gaussian distribution, OR at least another kind of symmetric curve.

If we look at the theory of Gaussian distribution, then there is no chance that Noble prize attracts less "retards". Noble prize winners as a part of population will get the same distribution as whole population.

"if we look on the theory of Gaussian distribution, then theres no chance ESR attracts more of "retards". ESR as a part of population will get the same distribution as whole population."

this makes no sense

it makes perfect sense, go read a book or something.

Its possible for the ESR population to be normally distributed AND have a relatively higher amount of retards - users of this site are not necessarily a random sample, it's possible that ESR users are self-selected from the "retard tail" of the distribution.

Why don't you try and explain what aspects of the "theory of Gaussian distribution" shows what you are saying?

there are no arguments behind "esr is not a random sample".

we differ in age, nationality, religion, culture, wealth. therefore we are a random sample of population, and theres nothing bad in assuming "retardation" has normal distrubution, as its the most common type.

"there are no arguments behind "esr is not a random sample".

is there a roughly equal proportion of men and woman on the site? no? how the hell could it be a random sampling from the population then? this is so obvious i cant believe i need to make an argument for it. do you think the age profiles here match those of society at large?

"we differ in age, nationality, religion, culture, wealth. therefore we are a random sample of population"

you have a "therefore", but the second part doesn't follow from the first unless you think non-randomly sampled groups can't have different ages, nationalities etc?

"and theres nothing bad in assuming "retardation" has normal distrubution"

this is a red herring, i never said normality was a bad assumption

even though i gotta say that i'm aside with u here...a RANDOM sample doesn't actually need to have the base-populations distribution of stuff like age, sex, income etc. it is naturally to differ a bit. however, if ur sample does, in those aspects, differ a lot from the known distribution of the base-population, that can be a sign that it might not be as randomly drawn as u thought and/or representative (not random samples can be representative for the distribution of a certain feature as well though. and random ones which are dissorted in features like sex, age etc. might still be representative too. on some topics those variables might not be relevant for the variable of interests peculiarity)

the criteria for a RANDOM SAMPLE is, as i described beneath, that the pool of ppl in ur sample gets drawn randomly from ur base population in a way that every element within this population has the same probability to get drawn. however, i think the discussion got a bit mixed up between random sample and representative sample anyway.

I think you're right. The point is that ESR is obviously not a random sample wrt to a bunch of statistics, so theres no reason to assume it IS wrt to "retardation". He's saying it's impossible for it not to be random, so I wanted to show that it is possible in principal.

edit: I guess by random I mean representative. Which is relevant to what you were saying at the end of your post and I think I did treat "random" and "representative" as synonymous. Even still ESR users are not randomly sampled

gg

yeah i forgot about you gibberish, which are result of you not wanting to read a book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)

read a wiki article then. maybe it will make you a bit less dumb.

you haven't responded to anything I've said, you just tell me to go read a book - the classic response of someone who has no idea what they are talking about. the fact is there is nothing in the "theory of Gaussian distribution" that means there is "no chance" ESR attracts more retards. this sentence in particular is just stupid:

"ESR as a part of population will get the same distribution as whole population."

if you actually had any knowledge about statistics(its in the wikipedia article i posted) you would know random sample doesnt mean it has wide range of age or gender or bla bla bla whatever you mentioned.

so either read a book, or stay ignorant fuck who does not talk to me.

once again you don't actually respond. can you not argue without insulting people? i've studied plenty of statistics thanks, obviously more than you (but apparently that's not saying much).

ill ask you again: how does the "theory of gaussian distribution" ensure that ESR will not have a greater proportion of retards?

"you would know random sample doesnt mean it has wide range of age or gender or bla bla bla whatever you mentioned."

the whole point of a random sample is that it is random with respect to the statistic you are interested in. the question is whether or not ESR is significantly different with respect to retardation. you claimed that this is impossible because the "theory of gaussian distribution" but if thats the case how can we do any statistics at all? any subset we sample will be from the population as a whole so according to you it should "get the same distribution as whole population."?

you're confused. when i point out the OBVIOUS fact that ESR may not be a random sample, you say that there is no argument for it not to be. but thats the actual question we are trying to answer! and OF COURSE it is possible that it might not be, that's the whole point of statistics

random sample. however obviously, if we actually did some research the result would be an interval.


dude, srsly go read a book. i dont have time to explain basics to you.

"the result would be an interval."

the result of what? wtf do you mean by an interval? lmao

seriously? didnt you say you studied statistics? and you have no idea what intervals are?

gg wp.

go read a book.

and once again, all you do is say go read a book without actually arguing anything (because you're not able to)

nope, im just not going to explain basics to someone who apparently studied plenty of statistics. maybe you studied "plenty" because you're so bad at it?

so far you have shown you have no idea what random sample is and what intervals are. and these are the two things i remember, without reading your previous posts. you're ignorant about the topic.

more evasion and insults as I expected

how does the "theory of gaussian distribution" ensure that ESR will not have a greater proportion of retards?

and which part of normal distribution and random sample you did not get in earlier posts, ignorant?

So you still haven't even attempted to respond to anything I said.

I covered this already but you ignored it. The question is whether or not ESR as a population has a higher relative number of retards. You said this was impossible because of the theory if gaussians and that ESR "as a part of population will get the same distribution as whole population." This is not necessarily true (in fact its the question we are asking) as multiple people have pointed out to you (you ignored this point with them also).

multiple as you and some random anon? however it is nice to actually see you read the article i posted.

i never treated esr as a different population, just sample. you want to compare the curve of esr and whole world, and i assume you suspect they both have normal distribution while i just assumed its a part of population with normal distribution.

2 different things, but ignorants like you could mess it up.

"multiple as you and some random anon?"

Me, Austrian Anon, fau and DamianLillard all made the same point... did you not realise that?

"i never treated esr as a different population, just sample."

No idea what this is in response to. I literally have no clue what point you are trying to make here and it makes think you don't understand what I'm saying to you on a fundamental level.

"you want to compare the curve of esr and whole world"

This is the question the whole thread is premised on.

"while i just assumed its a part of population with normal distribution."

Wait, has this got something to do with the intervals you were talking about before?

"its a part of population with normal distribution."

ESR people are part of the whole population (great insight). As a population ESR probably also follows a normal distribution. These things are not mutually exclusive. Why are we talking about this? How is this a relevant response to what I wrote? I'm genuinely asking here these aren't rhetorical questions.

Seriously, you haven't explained a single thing. You just keep referencing books and wikipedia without showing how they back up a thing you've said.

i dont have to explain anything, apparently you studied statistics a lot. which kinda makes me confused about your lack of knowledge on the topic.

"i never treated esr as a different population, just sample."

No idea what this is in response to./quote]

prolly an anwser to this:

[quote]ESR as a population

now, as im tired of you being dumb: if we assume the attribute has gaussian distribution, and the sample is random, it will also have a gaussian distribution. it may just differ in a shape a bit, but it will still apply to 3sigma rule and, as retardation is boundary value, will not be that much different than the value for whole population.

"apparently you studied statistics a lot."

Wow I really hurt your feeling with that one huh? You are the one who is telling me go study, open a book etc. so its hilarious that you keep bringing this up like I'm trying to brag or something.

"if we assume the attribute has gaussian distribution, and the sample is random, it will also have a gaussian distribution"

How many times do I need to address this? Whether or not the sample is random is the question that is being asked. Contrary to what you said, it is entirely plausible that it might not be. So you saying it's impossible for it not to be because of the theory of gaussian distributions makes no sense. Look at what you wrote:

"if we look on the theory of Gaussian distribution, then theres no chance ESR attracts more of "retards"

So the theory of Gaussian distributions makes it IMPOSSIBLE for ESR to ATTRACT more retards. Maybe you just got confused, or fucked up because English is not your first language, but what you wrote makes no sense.

"it may just differ in a shape a bit, but it will still apply to 3sigma rule and, as retardation is boundary value, will not be that much different than the value for whole population."

Do you understand that two populations can both have normal distributions and still be significantly different? Also LOL at sticking in the "3sigma rule" for absolutely no reason since it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Are you going to reveal what you meant when you started talking about intervals?

Whether or not the sample is random is the question that is being asked.

nope. i mean maybe for you, but you're dense as brick.

Do you understand that two populations can both have normal distributions and still be significantly different? Also LOL at sticking in the "3sigma rule" for absolutely no reason since it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

google 3 sigma, and boundary value. add these two.

Are you going to reveal what you meant when you started talking about intervals?

what about reading a book? cause i already explained my point to you, and you still make silly questions.

"if we look on the theory of Gaussian distribution, then theres no chance ESR attracts more of "retards". ESR as a part of population will get the same distribution as whole population."

nough said for every1 with brain to judge this guys comepetences. they're over 9000!

(still gotta drop a lol@ thinking every normal distribution spreads around the same (non standardized) expectancy value and has the same (non standardized) sigma boarders)

"nope. i mean maybe for you, but you're dense as brick."

If ESR is random or representative we would expect roughly the same proportion of retards as the general population. If there is some factor which makes it non-random, like the site being attractive for retards and the user base being totally self-selected, then we may find a higher proportion of retards. If it was impossible for it not to be random asking the question wouldn't even make sense.

As far as I know a 3 sigma value is an arbitrary threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis. What's that got to do with what we are talking about?

"cause i already explained my point to you"

You never explained what you meant by intervals in this context or how they are relevant. Surely you can write a few sentences about what you meant? Or at least explain this:

"the result would be an interval."

The result of what? What do you mean by an interval in this context?

As far as I know a 3 sigma value is an arbitrary threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis. What's that got to do with what we are talking about?

thats why i did not want to talk with you in the first place, ignorant. maybe read some books/wikipedia? unless you get a clue im not going to explain anything to you, because its like talking to a wall.

Its not talking to a wall if I'm actually asking you to explain yourself (which you haven't done yet, at all). Do you disagree with my definition of "3sigma"? If so what definition are you using? If you agree to it how is it relevant? If you look at the wikipedia page for "Standard Deviation" they talk about 5 sigma and it agrees with what I said.

Why did you bring up intervals? What does "the result would be an interval" mean? You call me a brick wall, but all I've done is ask you to explain what you mean. I can think of uses of the term interval in maths/statistics but none of them make sense in the context of the discussion, why can't you just clarify? Surely you didn't just spit it out without knowing wtf you are on about?

did i said a shit about 5 sigmas? learn to read :S

i bring up intervals because any result of probing in a sample is a fucking interval, with set confidence level. do you even statistics bro?

How is 5 sigma conceptually different to 3 sigma? Does the difference between 5 sigma and 3 sigma have any bearing on whatever point you were trying to make? If not why would you even bother point this out? Do you agree with my definition? If so how is it relevant? Do you just react to each post in isolation without even trying to follow the general topic? Do you treat each reply as some sort of mental association game where unrelated statisticy-sounding things are pulled from thin air? If I agree to read a book and/or wikipedia will you answer ANY of my questions, ever? If I make every statement in my post a question will you directly answer any of them, even by accident?

"i bring up intervals because any result of probing in a sample is a fucking interval"

Ok? So we can get confidence intervals? So what? How is this relevant to what we were discussing? Do you understand what the topic of conversation is?

if you finally agree to read a book(and actually do it) there wont be any further discussion.

5 sigmas is far beyond the boarders of gaussian curve. think about it. and if you want to find certain value (eg number of retards in a sample) you will have to estimate the number. its relevant as fuck. 7474

ps. you're just hopeless.

5 sigmas is not "far beyond the boarders of gaussian curve". What would that even mean? Another statement that doesn't make any sense. Surely you don't think a normal curve has a max/min value or something?

To get back on topic: do you accept that the population may have a normal distribution, ESR may have a normal distribution, and that these distributions may be significantly different?

do you even know what sigma is?

dude srsly, stop taking all your knowledge out of your ass. its annoying to get spammed by a dense ignorant

Sigma stands for the standard deviation. I already told what I understand "3 sigma rule" to be in this context and asked you if you agree with it or not. Surprise surprise you never answered. The phrase "beyond the boarders of gaussian curve." makes no sense since a gaussian curve doesn't have boarders. If you think it does make sense explain what you mean by it. Of course you won't though because you can't. You won't quote or even acknowledge any of these questions, just call me a name and maybe pull some unrelated statistical term that you don't understand out of your ass.

sigh, graph of gaussian distribution is almost 3 sigmas wide. when will you understand you have no knowledge on topic, and supporting yourself with wikipedia wont work?


ps. editing posts to look more badass is also not a valid option, as i can see when they were edited.

"graph of gaussian distribution is almost 3 sigmas wide."

So what? That's not a response to what I wrote, at all. I pointed out that there are no "boarders" in a gaussian distribution and that what you wrote was bullshit.

You: 5 sigma is way beyond the boarder of gaussian distribution.
Me: Gaussians dont have "boarders" so what you wrote doesn't make sense.
You: graph of gaussian is almost 3 sigma wide.

LOL. This is how the whole "argument" has gone. You don't directly answer or explain anything while bringing in unrelated topics and then call me dumb when I ask you how they are relevant.

"ps. editing posts to look more badass is also not a valid option, as i can see when they were edited."

I edit my posts because of the central limit theorem. If you don't understand how citing the central limit theorem is a sensible response it's because you are ignorant and need to read to a book.

you edit your posts because you have literally no knowledge nor imagination.

3 sigmas cover ~96 pc of gaussian distribution. i belive its simple match to estimate 5s will cover much more, therefore its out of its borders.

LOL. This is how the whole "argument" has gone. I write an anwser to your stupid, basic questions, and you spam me with even more stupid questions, because you need to read a book, before trying to talk about more advance topics.

"therefore its out of its borders."

A Gaussian distribution doesn't have "boarders", so that makes no sense.

Do you accept that the general population may have a normal distribution, ESR may have a normal distribution, and that these distributions may be significantly different?

no, i accept you're clueless.

a) ESR is a sub-population which may or may not have the same demographics and properties of the variables that the OP wants to measure as the population of all humans.
b) A poll here wouldn't be a random sample, but a convenient sample.

=> there is no random sampling involved, therefore there is no random sample by definition

i disagree.

No, you don't.

"the result would be an interval."

the result of what? wtf do you mean by an interval? lmao

don't tell other ppl to read books when ur knowledge is based on 1-2 wikipedia articles. lol

he looked up some stuff on wikipedia and now trolls you with it

hits would never troll, how dare you

ur (probably sucking) statistic knowledge is useless if u can't apply it. do u rlly think esr is a random sample of the society?

lol, no; that's the whole point

plx stop reading statistics stuff hitsu, u don't understand the shit good enough in order to apply it any useful. just spread dangerously wrong half knowledge in the name of science. makes me want to punch u in the face, a bit :D
as obi stated up there alrdy, not everybody out there hast the same probability to end up as user of a gaming forum. for quake. called esr. to demonstrate it with sth so obvious that maybe even u understand: some ppl don't even have internet access. maybe these ppl are majourly mentally retardeds. maybe the opposite. maybe just slightly different than rest of society. in fact the probability that they're showing off the EXACTLY same distribution as the rest of society almost equals 0.

i guess to u the club of harvard graduees seems like a totally random sample of society as well. cuz, hey, after all it's a group of ppl from society! so random. many representative. wow!


speking strictly scientific, sample is random if everybody from ur basic-population has the same chance to end up in there. one can still just pick one group and claim that it's (probably) representative - if one can argue why chances to end up in the group are equally distributed. however, a good sociologist will most likely always be able to find reasons why that's not exactly the case.
however, iq could/should theoretically be normally distributed within esr. doesn't mean it's on about the same parameters as the rest of society. hope u learned sth.

you should feel special now, as i usually dont reply to anons.

i surely learned how to use reply button. like 3 years ago when i joined esr. i suggest you start with basics before you dare to talk to me.

you should feel special now, as i usually dont reply to anons.

Now we're just waiting for the time when you stop replying to regualr users \o/

ow, i know it would break your hearth mate :-)

since i couldn't write a number into the "Reply to" field i always thought it would only work for registred users. finally i know better!

however, i'm affraid wether i know the "reply to" option or not doesn't make u any more competent.

Where is the "All of the above" option?