Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:Insulting? How so?
You insulted his intelligence by saying
you would need to "weigh" his education in order to "understand" the math.
Read my post. I used the word “we”, not the word “I”.
Go on... read it.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:I have not said he’s incapable of understanding the article.
Your statement demanding he provide his education infers that you think he is a total moron.
Please look up the definition of the words infer and imply.
Go on...
https://www.google.com/search?q=infer&i ... ent=safarihttps://www.google.com/search?q=imply&i ... ent=safariYou are suggesting that I am implying he’s a moron. I don’t think I am doing that.
You however are inferring that I believe that, even though that wasn’t stated.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:I am asking him to give his statements some weight by clarifying how he processes the article?
That's not what you asked, Jim. You asked for educational background, not clarification.
I asked for educational background so
we could give weight to the validity of his believe by understanding how he processed the article.
Do I have to type a thesis out for you to understand me? I am not able to use any common language or shorthand?
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:Educational background doesn’t have to be formal education... it can be experience or knowledge obtained through self education.
I don’t think you need a math degree to understand the article... but you do need some specialized knowledge, mostly in statistical analysis.
And are you going to ask every person you are in a conversation with whether or not they have the "education background" to even talk to you about certain issues? Arguments based on authority are illogical and are filled with fallacy, and that is what you are being right now. Falliable and illogical.
No. He posted a pretty detailed article that, in my opinion, needs a fair amount of knowledge to really comprehend.
If you’re gonna post something like that and state it’s 100% true, then yah... I want to know why you think you’re qualified to make that assessment. Is this required for ever post? No. Shit, it’s not like it’s even “required” for this post. He could stand up for himself and just tell me to GFY.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:Did you read the article? I reviewed it, maybe read about 25%. I took Engineering Level math in college and that was no help... it was my Statistics courses supported by some work experiences that enable me to process SOME of what the article said. If I spent a day reading it while reviewing some of my old college books I’d probably grasp it more fully. That said I got a fair overview. I read enough to see that the author’s conclusions are not fully supported without understanding the process of how votes are tallied and the upload process at the ground level. The author is cherry-picking and it’s obvious.
Your opinion on the article should not be equivocated to your extremely limited comprehension in order to understand the full mathematical ramifications posed in the article.
LOL
OK. So you misused the word “equivocated” there. I don’t think you know what the word means... as your sentence makes no sense.
https://www.google.com/search?q=equivoc ... ent=safariAlso, you didn’t answer my question. Did you read the article? You’re telling me I have an “extremely limited comprehension”... but you aren’t even addressing if you; a) read the link or b) understood the article
I fully understand the main thrust of the article, I didn’t get into the weeds, but the main point was clear. I also understood that the author (who is unidentified) cherry picked his data, and ignored important points related to collection and input of that data.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:I would say maybe less then 5% of the adult public in the US can read the linked article and make a good assessment of its’ validity.
(This is my subjective opinion of the general knowledge and intelligence of the average American. I’ll admit I don’t have a high opinion.)
Well it's nice to see you admit that you think you are the end-all-be-all for knowledge assessment...
I stand by my comment.
Also, my comment doesn’t say what you claim it says. I am NOT claiming to be “the smartest” and the “end-all-be-all”.
(Though I am claiming to be in the top 5%.)
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:No.
An iPhone has a user-interface specifically designed to be easy for an average person to use.
If you use my logic a better analogy would be to say only an Electrical Engineer can really understand the White Paper written to explain the Lifecycle of Materials in cell phones and their Environmental Impact.
https://www.ul.com/insights/life-cycle- ... ile-phonesA layperson can easily understand the summary (just like a layperson can understand the summary of Hitred’s linked article)... but you need specialized knowledge to know if the meat of the article is valid or bullshit.
Yes, that's exactly what you are saying. You're saying HitRed needs to read the math version of the "White Paper on Statistics" in order to understand the article. Your logic is extremely invalid. According to your logic, you need to understand how an iPhone works completely in order to even be able to comment on it (AKA, HitRed needs to have the statistical background in order to completely and fully understand the math in his linked article). Seeing as how you don't have any education in Electrical Engineering, and therefore don't understand how an iPhone's digitizer, LCD screen, MPC, battery, ADCs, MOS and Gate Logic, etc. work, you are therefore unqualified to have any opinion about how an iPhone works.
Yawn. Your analogies fail.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Jim, this is EXACTLY what you sound like. Condescending, at best. Doughebag egotistical narcissist at medium.
Condescending is not necessarily wrong. Just want to make sure you understand that.
If someone is going to post an article with detailed Statistical Analysis at it’s core... AND claim it’s “proof” of something... then yeah, I’m gonna be a bit condescending if that person can’t explain the statistics used in the “proof”.
Now note... I never said HR couldn’t do that. I simply asked if he could.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:Then be nice and don’t assume the worst.
or not.
Jim, with my many conversations with you, I try not to assume the worst in most of my initial posts.
Lie. You immediately jumped down my throat. It’s fine. That’s your MO.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Your responses only affirm that you cannot be reasoned with, and that you are only looking to be right.
I can be reasoned with when people use ‘reasonable tones’... though I will admit lI like to be right.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
You don't want to have an exchange of ideas here.
Wrong.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
I didn't comment in this thread to try and have a discussion with you. I know that is fruitless.
I commented to call you out in your hypocrisy and bullcrap.
You commented to TRY to bash me and call me out.
Again... I can see how I may sometimes off as condescending and a “know-it-all”.
This especially true when responding to you, for obvious reasons.
Calling me a hypocrite is off based and unfounded.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:It’s not hypocrisy. It might be wrong, you can argue it’s rude... but it’s not hypocritical.
It is exactly hypocritical, and it's even textbook.
Hypocrisy:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
Please explain to me how my posts are “textbook” hypocrisy?
Jdsizzleslice wrote:jimboston wrote:Please do... I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Industrial Management... which is essentially a dual Engineering/Business Management Major. This is supported by 25+ years in the computer industry, including 10+ years running a successful business. I read a lot, more since I retired, about 50% sci-fi stuff for fun, and 50% history books. Though I dabble is sociology and science books too.
That said one of the smartest guys I know personally has a GED as his highest education.
Your education has nothing to do with your comprehension to understand things outside of your knowledge base. You even state this yourself. I have a Masters in Electrical Engineering, with Math Minors in both undergrad and grad degrees. But do you know why I don't talk about it that often and I don't use it to make points based on authority?
Because we all have areas in which we are not the most knowledgeable, but still are competent enough to understand what is going on. You shouldn't require a specific educational background just for having the privilege of talking to you. Your educational background does not dictate how logical or illogical your argument is. Period.
I disagree. Education does not have NOTHING to do with your comprehension.. It provides a groundwork and basis upon which to build... both inside and outside you field of study. Saying it has no value or “nothing to do with” comprehension is incorrect. It’s just not the end all be all.
Agreed.Jdsizzleslice wrote:
You don't need a business degree in order to understand economics. You don't need an engineering degree to understand how a computer works. And you don't need a math degree to understand how statistics works.
but it helps
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Jim, you can talk all day and night about how others are wrong, and you are the only source of right that can ever exist in this form.
You mean this forum?
I don’t talk day and night about how others are wrong. I just asked a question. LOL
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
But don't you dare insult the intelligence of others by requiring they have your standard of education background just to have a discussion with you.
Or?
LOL
You are taking a big leap with what I stated... again refer back to the definition of the word “infer”. That’s what you’ve done since this started. You inferred bad intent on my part where there was none.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:
Honestly, one of the most pathetic lines of logic you have used thusfar Jim.
It wasn’t even a point of logic, but go ahead... explain to me how or why it is ‘wrong’ for me to ask a poster his/her ability to process a pretty detailed paper on statistical analysis. I don’t think posters should link something as “proof” of some point if they themselves don’t have the background to judge if the statics in the paper are even valid.
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 1:23 pm
