Liberal Forum

Ok ****. Repost your definition and I will tell you what is wrong with it.

After years of dodging, the forum's foremost moron and coward, will now entertain us by setting his hair on fire...


Here is my definition of Survivorship bias -

When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.


@Vegas  
 
 

You expected others to repost things an indefinite amount of times. Your turn.  

Rule, idiot. **** your ignorance or 3k greenies

 

R.Suave » 19 Apr 2024, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:02 pm

After years of dodging, the forum's foremost moron and coward, will now entertain us by setting his hair on fire...

 

I see you were looking in the mirror while typing this. Well done. You finally admit it. 

Here is my definition of Survivorship bias -

When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.

Ok stalker. Now read all of this. I know how you are when reading...well anything. You can only handle 4 words. 



1. First, with respect to your use of the word "mortality":                  I bet you still think dead people are involved. Hence, why you chose that word. 

2. Too vague. You made it vague on purpose because you don't know. It's what narcissists do. No surprise. 

3. Your definition could mean serval different things:

• Selection bias which is not the same as survivorship bias. It means the participants selected for a study do not represent the broader population accurately.  Which is something that you would probably do because you are a moron. This leads to skewed results. Your definition encapsulates that also. 
• Attrition bias which is not survivorship bias either.  It refers to longitudinal studies, and no ****, I am not going to define "longitudinal studies." This means if participants drop out, gone missing, or just say to hell with it and don't follow up at the same rate, the remaining sample may not accurately represent the original population. Your definition also encapsulates this. 
  
  Actually, there are several more types of biases that your definition reflects, but I have gone over the word count that you are capable of reading. 

@rippy 38  I went far over the word count that @R. Suave  is capable of reading. Would you like to make a bet that he only reads 4 words , then he will strike though the rest? 

R.Suave » 19 Apr 2024, 12:02 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:02 pm

After years of dodging, the forum's foremost moron and coward, will now entertain us by setting his hair on fire...

Here is my definition of Survivorship bias -

When a sample fails to reflect "mortality" in the population being examined.

@Vegas  

That's close, but no cigar...

LMAO!
 

*rippy38 » 19 Apr 2024, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:32 pm

That's close, but no cigar...

LMAO!

It actually isn't that close. It's  vague. All he said is that a sample is no good, thus the population isn't adequately being represented. He is using fancy words to hide behind the fact that even a 8th grader would know and that he doesn't know himself. 

Narcissists love being vague. They think it gets them out of trouble. 

Vegas » 19 Apr 2024, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:35 pm

It actually isn't that close. It's  vague. All he said is that a sample is no good, thus the population isn't adequately being represented. He is using fancy words to hide behind the fact that even a 8th grader would know and that he doesn't know himself. 

Narcissists love being vague. They think it gets them out of trouble.

 
 

*rippy38 » 19 Apr 2024, 12:36 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:36 pm

Seriously. His definition could encapsulate almost every known bias out there. It's just him using his tricks and hoping that I wouldn't notice. 

Vegas » 19 Apr 2024, 12:38 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:38 pm

Seriously. His definition could encapsulate almost every known bias out there. It's just him using his tricks and hoping that I wouldn't notice.

I don't think I have ever seen anyone try as hard as he does to not be wrong, and fail so miserably in his efforts at the same time.

LOL
 

*rippy38 » 19 Apr 2024, 12:32 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:32 pm

That's close, but no cigar...

LMAO!

What is the Survivorship Bias?

Survivorship bias is a cognitive shortcut that occurs when a successful subgroup is mistaken as the entire group, due to the invisibility of the failure subgroup. The bias’ name comes from the error an individual makes when a data set only considers the “surviving” observations, excluding points that didn’t survive.1

https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/survivorship-bias

a successful subgroup - this would be a Sample.

the entire group - the Population

the failure subgroup - mortality

when a data set only considers the “surviving” observations - why "mortality" can describe the "failure subgroup"

excluding points that didn’t survive -
Your turn
 
 

*rippy38 » 19 Apr 2024, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:49 pm

I don't think I have ever seen anyone try as hard as he does to not be wrong, and fail so miserably in his efforts at the same time.

LOL

Here is the amazing thing. He copy/pasted the definition from Google and he still can't get it right. When I finally explain it to him, I am going to have to dumb it down so low, that even a first grader will understand. I have a rule in place that before I give him an example and the definition in my words, he must acknowledge that he doesn't know what it is.    Which obviously will never happen.


@R. Suave  

I see you were looking in the mirror while typing this. Well done. You finally admit it. 

Ok stalker. Now read all of this. I know how you are when reading...well anything. You can only handle 4 words. 

1. First, with respect to your use of the word "mortality":                  I bet you still think dead people are involved. Hence, why you chose that word. 

2. Too vague. You made it vague on purpose because you don't know. It's what narcissists do. No surprise. 

3. Your definition could mean serval different things:

• Selection bias which is not the same as survivorship bias. It means the participants selected for a study do not represent the broader population accurately.  Which is something that you would probably do because you are a moron. This leads to skewed results. Your definition encapsulates that also. 
• Attrition bias which is not survivorship bias either.  It refers to longitudinal studies, and no ****, I am not going to define "longitudinal studies." This means if participants drop out, gone missing, or just say to hell with it and don't follow up at the same rate, the remaining sample may not accurately represent the original population. Your definition also encapsulates this. 
  
  Actually, there are several more types of biases that your definition reflects, but I have gone over the word count that you are capable of reading. 

 

 I bet you still think

I think you're a moron.

I also think it has once again been demonstrated.

Too vague

That's pretty vague.

Your definition could mean

No...
 

*rippy38 » 19 Apr 2024, 12:49 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:49 pm

I don't think I have ever seen anyone try as hard as he does to not be wrong, and fail so miserably in his efforts at the same time.

LOL

You can shut the **** up now.

Vegas » 19 Apr 2024, 12:53 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:53 pm

Here is the amazing thing. He copy/pasted the definition from Google and he still can't get it right. When I finally explain it to him, I am going to have to dumb it down so low, that even a first grader will understand. I have a rule in place that before I give him an example and the definition in my words, he must acknowledge that he doesn't know what it is.    Which obviously will never happen.

@R. Suave

You've been good and exposed now.

R.Suave » 19 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm

You've been good and exposed now.

         The projection is real ^^^

Vegas » 19 Apr 2024, 12:24 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:24 pm

@rippy 38  I went far over the word count that @R. Suave  is capable of reading. Would you like to make a bet that he only reads 4 words , then he will strike though the rest?

I didn't strike through it.

I beat it bloody.


**** idiot.

Go spot my car...don't get near it.
 

Vegas » 19 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:58 pm

         The projection is real ^^^

Now post your example.


 

R.Suave » 19 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 1:00 pm

Now post your example.

I don't see an admission of your ignorance. Thus, rule idiot. **** your ignorance or 3k greenies.

R.Suave » 19 Apr 2024, 12:59 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 12:59 pm

I beat it bloody.


 

Ummmm...no. You didn't even comment about it. 

Blatant lies and blatant projection is sure sign of Mary. 

Vegas » 19 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm » wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2024, 1:03 pm

Ummmm...no. You didn't even comment about it. 

Blatant lies and blatant projection is sure sign of Mary.

Scroll up, corpse...