Liberal Forum

Vegas » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

            And he flips it on me again. 

Vague. Not good enough. Math is precise. Vague definitions are completely unacceptable. This is a partial definition — it lacks clarity about why this matters (i.e. the distortion it causes) and how it happens (i.e. filtering out failures or dropouts).  

Try again. **** your partial ****.

To give some backstory here, I was exposing Veghead's stupid article about his usual presidential rankings. He was using a fallacy that is called "survivorship bias." Now, I don't expect people to know offhand what that means. However, given how much Veghead brags that he has superior aptitude in stats...and math in general, there was no need for me to define the fallacy. He should already know since it's a common term in stats. So, what did he think it meant? He took it literally and thought it meant dead presidents. LOL! The bolded quote at the end proves how intellectually superior he is. Image  

I am left with no choice, but to publicly embarrass him. 

@Blackvegetable I will never let you live this gem down. 
Survivorship bias = dead presidents. Image