Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

You forget.

This is supposed to be an example of "Survivorship bias"....as gibberish, it doesn't get out of the gate.

As an assertion it's an indictment, not of those of us who understand it, but of idiots like you who don't. 

Of which I actually 

Provided an example

Demonstrated how the con worked by providing context.

******* rubes like you insist the data lies because it doesn't jibe with the **** you hear from people who watch FOX.

Classic veghead. You are so **** easy to beat. Stop being predictable, as always. Here is what you are doing:

You are trying to gaslight the entire argument by pretending you were the one who provided context, when all you did was restate the methodology and pull a Carter detour. And of course, no Veghead reply is complete without a few insult grenades and some generic “you must watch FOX” accusation. It’s the debate equivalent of yelling “witch!” when backed into a corner. **** retard. 

I didn’t forget, Veghead, I just incorrectly assumed we were still pretending you understood what survivorship bias actually is. The entire point, which you’re still artfully dancing around, is that highlighting only the net job gains while ignoring losses and exits is a textbook case of survivorship bias: focusing only on the “survivors” of economic change while ignoring the businesses, jobs, and people that didn’t make it.

 You didn’t provide context—you narrated the BLS methodology and then changed the subject to Carter, like you were giving a lecture no one asked for. That’s not context; that’s deflection with a side of smug.And spare me the FOX News boogeyman—if your only defense is “you must be a rube who watches cable news I don’t like,” then you’ve already lost the argument. Again.
 You want to actually challenge the claim? Address the survivorship bias directly. Show how focusing only on net job creation gives a complete picture of the labor market, including quality, sustainability, and displaced workers. I’ll wait. And I’ll probably be waiting a while.

1. More deflection.
2. Continue to prove that he has no idea of what he is talking about. 
 

@Blackvegetable  I am the Enola Gay, and you are at ground zero in Hiroshima here: 

Cannonpointer » Today, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:35 am

Probably one of the best qualified - if not THE best qualified - observations ever. Yugely qualified. 

People are telling me, Mr. Pointer, your observations are the most qualified in known history. Some of the greatest observations. Really great - and getting greater. There are some fantastic observations coming, and a lot of really wonderful people working on making those observations great. 

We haven't had great observations on this board in way too long. WAY too long. So many terrible observations, many from fat chicks. And that's changing, and some people don't like it. But from here on out, we're gonna keep having great observations. Great, and getting greater as we go.

whatch you got against "fat chicks", flaco?









 

Vegas » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

Classic veghead. You are so **** easy to beat. Stop being predictable, as always. Here is what you are doing:

You are trying to gaslight the entire argument by pretending you were the one who provided context, when all you did was restate the methodology and pull a Carter detour. And of course, no Veghead reply is complete without a few insult grenades and some generic “you must watch FOX” accusation. It’s the debate equivalent of yelling “witch!” when backed into a corner. **** retard. 

I didn’t forget, Veghead, I just incorrectly assumed we were still pretending you understood what survivorship bias actually is. The entire point, which you’re still artfully dancing around, is that highlighting only the net job gains while ignoring losses and exits is a textbook case of survivorship bias: focusing only on the “survivors” of economic change while ignoring the businesses, jobs, and people that didn’t make it.

 You didn’t provide context—you narrated the BLS methodology and then changed the subject to Carter, like you were giving a lecture no one asked for. That’s not context; that’s deflection with a side of smug.And spare me the FOX News boogeyman—if your only defense is “you must be a rube who watches cable news I don’t like,” then you’ve already lost the argument. Again.
 You want to actually challenge the claim? Address the survivorship bias directly. Show how focusing only on net job creation gives a complete picture of the labor market, including quality, sustainability, and displaced workers. I’ll wait. And I’ll probably be waiting a while.

1. More deflection.
2. Continue to prove that he has no idea of what he is talking about.

highlighting only the net job gains while ignoring losses and exits is a textbook case of survivorship bias:

No, it isn't 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

No, it isn't

**** you ***.

Vegas » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

@Blackvegetable  I am the Enola Gay, and you are at ground zero in Hiroshima here: 

No...you're demonstrably a moron.

Blackvegetable » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

No...you're demonstrably a moron.

Lying ***.

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

No, it isn't

   

So, here is the thing. You have demonstrated that not only do you still not know what survivorship bias is, but you also don't know what "net jobs" mean. 

Now I have to harass you on both accounts.

Vegas » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

   

So, here is the thing. You have demonstrated that not only do you still not know what survivorship bias is, but you also don't know what "net jobs" mean. 

Now I have to harass you on both accounts.

Sirvivorship bias is a SAMPLING error.

Sampling is a statistical exercize...

It isn't about "perception"

This isn't for innumerate Level 0.16s..

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Sirvivorship bias is a SAMPLING error.

Sampling is a statistical exercize...

It isn't about "perception"

This isn't for innumerate Level 0.16s..

Sirvivorship bias is a SAMPLING error.

Sampling is a statistical exercize...

LEARN TO SPELL YOU **** RETARD

Blackvegetable » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Sirvivorship bias is a SAMPLING error.

Sampling is a statistical exercize...

It isn't about "perception"

This isn't for innumerate Level 0.16s..

Oh my God. You are so **** hopeless. Survivorship bias is a sampling error? That’s like saying a heart attack is just a little chest discomfort. Sure, it involves flawed sampling, but reducing it to that completely misses the point. The real issue is how it distorts interpretation by focusing only on the “survivors” and ignoring the losses, failures, or those filtered out of the dataset. It absolutely shapes perception—especially in economics, finance, and public policy, because people draw conclusions from what’s visible, not from what’s missing. That’s the entire danger of the bias. Idiot. But hey, keep pretending it’s just a stats footnote if that helps you sleep through your own argument.
 

Vegas » 25 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

25 minutes ago

Oh my God. You are so **** hopeless. Survivorship bias is a sampling error? That’s like saying a heart attack is just a little chest discomfort. Sure, it involves flawed sampling, but reducing it to that completely misses the point. The real issue is how it distorts interpretation by focusing only on the “survivors” and ignoring the losses, failures, or those filtered out of the dataset. It absolutely shapes perception—especially in economics, finance, and public policy, because people draw conclusions from what’s visible, not from what’s missing. That’s the entire danger of the bias. Idiot. But hey, keep pretending it’s just a stats footnote if that helps you sleep through your own argument.

Sure, it involves flawed sampling, but reducing it to that completely misses the point.

No...I very much get the point..

You're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

No...I very much get the point..

You're a moron.

What is "survivorship bias?" . Your words only, without my help. And **** your "sampling error" ****. Put some substance to it. There are a million types of sampling errors that do not include survivorship bias. Moron. 

What is "net jobs?" Your words only, without my help. 

Vegas » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

What is "survivorship bias?" . Your words only, without my help. And **** your "sampling error" ****. Put some substance to it. There are a million types of sampling errors that do not include survivorship bias. Moron. 

What is "net jobs?" Your words only, without my help.

No...

You clearly can't "help" with something you consistently demonstrate you don't understand. 

The surveys only seek to determine how many people are employed under their definitions. There is no sampling of the survey population.

The sampling is in the choice of survey respondents, but there the only question is whether the sample is large enough to be "valid"...the matter of "survivorship" is handled through what is referred to as the "birth/death adjustment".


I think we can stop now while you apologize to the forum and eviscerate yourself in my honor.

Chop, chop.
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 8:19 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:19 am

I'm the one of the three of us who actually understands this stuff.

It is impossible for the BLS  to get an accurate count of  the millions of  Illegal Aliens who are doing the work that US Citizens should be doing for twice the wage plus benefits.
Only a total idiot like you believes that a representative number  of Illegal Aliens are taking part in any such surveys      

Blackvegetable » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

No...

You clearly can't "help" with something you consistently demonstrate you don't understand. 

The surveys only seek to determine how many people are employed under their definitions. There is no sampling of the survey population.

The sampling is in the choice of survey respondents, but there the only question is whether the sample is large enough to be "valid"...the matter of "survivorship" is handled through what is referred to as the "birth/death adjustment".

I think we can stop now while you apologize to the forum and eviscerate yourself in my honor.

Chop, chop.

Veghead really out here delivering a TED Talk on BLS survey mechanics like it somehow proves he understands survivorship bias. You are trying so hard to sound authoritative, but once again you are confusing data collection methodology with cognitive bias. It’s like watching someone mistake the instruction manual for the point of the game.You are flexing your Wikipedia-tier understanding of labor statistics while completely missing the point, again.

You keep reciting the mechanics of how employment surveys are conducted like that somehow refutes a discussion about how the interpretation of those numbers creates a distorted narrative. That’s what survivorship bias is—not about how surveys sample respondents, but how outcomes are framed by ignoring what’s been lost or excluded from view.“Birth/death adjustment”? Cute attempt at sounding like you’ve cornered the glossary, but it’s irrelevant to the actual argument. You’re trying to patch up your misunderstanding with buzzwords and hoping nobody notices you're still off-topic.

 And as for eviscerating myself in your honor—sorry, Veghead, you’re not quite impressive enough for ritual sacrifice. Maybe start by answering a question, the first time asked, without a tantrum first.

Chop chop.

 
 

Vegas » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

Veghead really out here delivering a TED Talk on BLS survey mechanics like it somehow proves he understands survivorship bias. You are trying so hard to sound authoritative, but once again you are confusing data collection methodology with cognitive bias. It’s like watching someone mistake the instruction manual for the point of the game.You are flexing your Wikipedia-tier understanding of labor statistics while completely missing the point, again.

You keep reciting the mechanics of how employment surveys are conducted like that somehow refutes a discussion about how the interpretation of those numbers creates a distorted narrative. That’s what survivorship bias is—not about how surveys sample respondents, but how outcomes are framed by ignoring what’s been lost or excluded from view.“Birth/death adjustment”? Cute attempt at sounding like you’ve cornered the glossary, but it’s irrelevant to the actual argument. You’re trying to patch up your misunderstanding with buzzwords and hoping nobody notices you're still off-topic.

 And as for eviscerating myself in your honor—sorry, Veghead, you’re not quite impressive enough for ritual sacrifice. Maybe start by answering a question, the first time asked, without a tantrum first.

Chop chop.

confusing data collection methodology with cognitive bias.

so your example is NOT one of Sampling error..

therefore it cannot be an example of Survivorship bias.


QED.

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

so your example is NOT one of Sampling error..

therefore it cannot be an example of Survivorship bias.

QED.

No, Veghead, that’s not how logic—or survivorship bias—works. Sampling error is one way survivorship bias can occur, not the only way. Survivorship bias is about drawing conclusions based only on those who made it through a process, while ignoring those who didn’t. That can happen in analysis, reporting, or interpretation—not just sampling.

 So yes, my example is survivorship bias because it critiques how focusing only on net job gains ignores losses, labor force exits, and job quality. That’s not a data collection flaw—it’s a cognitive blind spot in how the results are interpreted and presented. But sure, slap “QED” on it and pretend you just won a debate you never actually participated in.

QED
 

Vegas » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

No, Veghead, that’s not how logic—or survivorship bias—works. Sampling error is one way survivorship bias can occur, not the only way. Survivorship bias is about drawing conclusions based only on those who made it through a process, while ignoring those who didn’t. That can happen in analysis, reporting, or interpretation—not just sampling.

 So yes, my example is survivorship bias because it critiques how focusing only on net job gains ignores losses, labor force exits, and job quality. That’s not a data collection flaw—it’s a cognitive blind spot in how the results are interpreted and presented. But sure, slap “QED” on it and pretend you just won a debate you never actually participated in.

QED

Why are you still going on?

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Why are you still going on?

    The same question can be applied to you. But we both know you only ask, you don't answer..the first time.