Until I can verify how it was done, I will retract and concede.
-
-
Replying to @VarangianSkull @NoLongerBennett and
Quantitatively, sure, but I think you can maintain the position qualitatively: “it’s a very small subset of the total male population regardless of the specifics of precisely how small it is.”
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @skirtsnhose @NoLongerBennett and
Yes, BUT I did not say that. I specifically compared to 4 leaf clover odds, which are roughly 1 in 5000, and Bennett's point is that this may not be justified - even if, seemingly-paradoxically, I am correct. As it so happens I found the site:https://igotstandardsbro.com/stats
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VarangianSkull @skirtsnhose and
And here: "The final percentage is not far from reality but it's not entirely accurate because it doesn't take into account the correlations between income and height or weight." We see that Bennett is right. The stats used on the site didn't take into account correlation.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @VarangianSkull @NoLongerBennett and
Let me say it another way: if Morlock or Bennett had made the original comparison then I would expect there to be numbers backing up the similarity of comparative rarity. I do not expect statistical rigor from you.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
-
Replying to @VarangianSkull @NoLongerBennett and
Dude, it wasn’t an insult. Morlock and Bennett are each precise for different reasons. Precision has value but it’s not the only value.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @skirtsnhose @VarangianSkull and
ooh, now I want to hear what the different reasons are
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @VarangianSkull and
Bear in mind this is a qualitative gut feel so I could be wrong, but: You: reeee (autist) Bennett: lawyer training in distinctions bordering on pedantry
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @skirtsnhose @MorlockP and
I will say, though, that
@BostonDelendEst is the king of the latter.2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
the power of "both"
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @skirtsnhose and
re this whole thread, can’t you calculate how correlated they have to be for thales to be wrong?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @raptros_ @skirtsnhose and
sure, I could ...but the ROI on doing so is nearly zero
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.