PDA

View Full Version : Who is above average?


John HUDSON
November 15th 03, 03:42 PM
It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
or capacity.

Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?

Howard Garland
November 15th 03, 04:13 PM
John HUDSON wrote:
> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> or capacity.
>
> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?

I am?

Howard

John HUDSON
November 15th 03, 04:18 PM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:13:32 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>> or capacity.
>>
>> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>
>I am?

I was really looking for less obvious examples Howard! ;o)

"False modesty is not modesty at all."
John HUDSON 2003

Howard Garland
November 15th 03, 06:10 PM
John HUDSON wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:13:32 -0500, Howard Garland
> > wrote:
>
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>>>or capacity.
>>>
>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>>
>>I am?
>
>
> I was really looking for less obvious examples Howard! ;o)

In that case, try posing a less trivial question, ****er ;-)

Howie, who has never been known for his modesty.

Howard Garland
November 15th 03, 07:05 PM
David wrote:

> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>>or capacity.
>>
>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>
>
> I would never admit it!!

Word! Cause your a better man than I am.

Howard

DRS
November 15th 03, 07:11 PM
John HUDSON > wrote in message

> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> or capacity.
>
> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?

I'm not cutting 7" off for anyone.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened to be is like
****ting in your pants because that's where your asshole happened to be."
Andreas Prilop

Howard Garland
November 15th 03, 07:38 PM
David wrote:

> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>David wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>>>>or capacity.
>>>>
>>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>>>
>>>
>>>I would never admit it!!
>>
>>Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
>>
>>Howard
>
>
> i was brought up to always strive not to be just average

In that case, man, you are a success. Striving to be average is just
too ****ing hard for some folks :)

Howie, who is not JUST your average guy.

David
November 15th 03, 07:44 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> or capacity.
>
> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?

I would never admit it!!

David
November 15th 03, 08:10 PM
"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
>
> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> >>or capacity.
> >>
> >>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
> >
> >
> > I would never admit it!!
>
> Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
>
> Howard

i was brought up to always strive not to be just average

David
November 15th 03, 09:03 PM
"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
>
> > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>David wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> >>>>or capacity.
> >>>>
> >>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I would never admit it!!
> >>
> >>Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
> >>
> >>Howard
> >
> >
> > i was brought up to always strive not to be just average
>
> In that case, man, you are a success. Striving to be average is just
> too ****ing hard for some folks :)
>
> Howie, who is not JUST your average guy.

in my case being below average comes natural - the challenge is being 'way'
below average - I like to stand out in a crowd

Mistress Krista
November 15th 03, 09:35 PM
> John HUDSON wrote:
> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.


No, approx half are below the median.
Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
skewing things. Any ideas?


Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

David Cohen
November 15th 03, 09:38 PM
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote
>
> > John HUDSON wrote:
> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below
average.
>
> No, approx half are below the median.
> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with
accuracy that
> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one
real loser
> skewing things. Any ideas?

She shoots! SHE SCORES!!

David

Keith Hobman
November 15th 03, 09:44 PM
In article
e.rogers.com>,
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:

> > John HUDSON wrote:
> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>
>
> No, approx half are below the median.
> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
> skewing things. Any ideas?

Wow.

Biting. As a fellow Canuck I'm quite proud of this zinger. Panache. Verve.
Good. Really good.

Howard Garland
November 15th 03, 10:00 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:

>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>
>
>
> No, approx half are below the median.
> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
> skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>
> Krista

All right!

I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
respect to math/stat skills.

Howie

Howard Garland
November 15th 03, 10:18 PM
David wrote:

> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
>
> that
>
>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>
> loser
>
>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>>Krista
>>
>>All right!
>>
>>I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
>>respect to math/stat skills.
>>
>>Howie
>
> Howie, I think you lied to me. You are clearly well above average

Nah!

David
November 15th 03, 10:47 PM
"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote in
message
.cable.rogers.com...
>
> > John HUDSON wrote:
> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>
>
> No, approx half are below the median.
> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
loser
> skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>
> Krista

yes, it makes you think . . . who is that loser causing the problem??

David
November 15th 03, 10:59 PM
"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
> Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> >>John HUDSON wrote:
> >>
> >>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >
> >
> >
> > No, approx half are below the median.
> > Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
that
> > half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
loser
> > skewing things. Any ideas?
> >
> >
> > Krista
>
> All right!
>
> I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
> respect to math/stat skills.
>
> Howie
Howie, I think you lied to me. You are clearly well above average

Michael and Debbie Russell
November 15th 03, 11:34 PM
"David" > wrote in message
u...
>
> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> ...
> > David wrote:
> >
> > > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>David wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> > >>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable
area
> > >>>>or capacity.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>I would never admit it!!
> > >>
> > >>Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
> > >>
> > >>Howard
> > >
> > >
> > > i was brought up to always strive not to be just average
> >
> > In that case, man, you are a success. Striving to be average is just
> > too ****ing hard for some folks :)
> >
> > Howie, who is not JUST your average guy.
>
> in my case being below average comes natural - the challenge is being
'way'
> below average - I like to stand out in a crowd
>
Perhaps, but being below average in this ng still leaves you in a reasonable
position WRT the rest of the population.

>

Howard Garland
November 16th 03, 12:26 AM
John HUDSON wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
> *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>
>>
>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>
> Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
> loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
> sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".
>
> This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
> contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!
>
> Get out of that!!

There are, as I am sure you are aware, a number of different meanings in
common parlance for the term "average." Sometimes, "average" is indeed
used to denote the median or 50th percentile; and given this meaning,
you are quite correct. Other times, "average" denotes a modal
characteristic, and in this sense of the term, most on wfw are
"average." Finally, "average" can be used to refer to an arithmetic
mean, which was, I believe, what Krista was doing. In this case, we
simply cannot know what percent of a group falls below "average",
without knowing more about the distribution of the variable under
consideration.

Howie

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 12:33 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:

>
>> John HUDSON wrote:
>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>
>
>No, approx half are below the median.
>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>skewing things. Any ideas?

Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".

This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!

Get out of that!!

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 12:37 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:38:52 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote
>>
>> > John HUDSON wrote:
>> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below
>average.
>>
>> No, approx half are below the median.
>> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with
>accuracy that
>> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one
>real loser
>> skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>She shoots! SHE SCORES!!

You're not peeping little chap are you?

She is a valiant player and is the most likely to "score", but you
mustn't rely on her to score for you old chum.

See my earlier post and try and think for yourself for a change.

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 12:40 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 08:47:06 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote in
>message
.cable.rogers.com...
>>
>> > John HUDSON wrote:
>> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>
>>
>> No, approx half are below the median.
>> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>loser
>> skewing things. Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> Krista
>
>yes, it makes you think . . . who is that loser causing the problem??

It's a close call! ;o)

Proton Soup
November 16th 03, 12:42 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:

>
>> John HUDSON wrote:
>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>
>
>No, approx half are below the median.
>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>skewing things. Any ideas?

Dayumn. Haven't seen anybody bitchslapped like that in quite a while.
You really know your deviates there girlfriend.

Proton Soup

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 01:03 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article
e.rogers.com>,
>"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>> > John HUDSON wrote:
>> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>
>>
>> No, approx half are below the median.
>> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>> skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>Wow.
>
>Biting. As a fellow Canuck I'm quite proud of this zinger. Panache. Verve.
>Good. Really good.

Let's set a few "data" points:

e.g.

Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?

How many deadlift in MFW?

What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted by all
deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in MFW.)

Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below average!

It works all the way through - including IQ!! ;o)

Let's refine my earlier question;

At what do you believe you are below average when measured against all
other MFW contributors?

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 01:05 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:26:38 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
>> *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
>> loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
>> sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".
>>
>> This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
>> contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!
>>
>> Get out of that!!
>
>There are, as I am sure you are aware, a number of different meanings in
>common parlance for the term "average." Sometimes, "average" is indeed
>used to denote the median or 50th percentile; and given this meaning,
>you are quite correct. Other times, "average" denotes a modal
>characteristic, and in this sense of the term, most on wfw are
>"average." Finally, "average" can be used to refer to an arithmetic
>mean, which was, I believe, what Krista was doing. In this case, we
>simply cannot know what percent of a group falls below "average",
>without knowing more about the distribution of the variable under
>consideration.

Quite right Howie; see my reply to Keith! ;o)

Wayne S. Hill
November 16th 03, 01:10 AM
John HUDSON wrote:

> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>
> How many deadlift in MFW?
>
> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted
> by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in
> MFW.)
>
> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
> average!

Incorrect.

--
-Wayne

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 01:12 AM
On 16 Nov 2003 01:10:19 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>
>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>
>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>
>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted
>> by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in
>> MFW.)
>>
>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>> average!
>
>Incorrect.

Substantiate!

Proton Soup
November 16th 03, 01:18 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:26:38 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
>> *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
>> loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
>> sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".
>>
>> This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
>> contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!

The situation we are faced with in mfw is one below-average poster
contributing more than 50% of the posts. Some statisticians would
consider this an outlier and discard the data.

Proton Soup

Howard Garland
November 16th 03, 01:22 AM
Wayne S. Hill wrote:

> John HUDSON wrote:
>
>
>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>
>>>>How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>
>>>>What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>
>>>>Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>average!
>>>
>>>Incorrect.
>>
>>Substantiate!
>
>
> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
> average.

QED.

Howie

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 01:26 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:18:15 -0600, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:26:38 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
>>> *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
>>> loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
>>> sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".
>>>
>>> This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
>>> contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!
>
>The situation we are faced with in mfw is one below-average poster
>contributing more than 50% of the posts. Some statisticians would
>consider this an outlier and discard the data.

Good point; let us therefore discard all input from that poster and
apply the criteria as stated. It won't alter the outcome one little
jot!

Half the contributors to MFW will still be below average!

Wayne S. Hill
November 16th 03, 01:26 AM
John HUDSON wrote:

> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>
>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>
>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>
>>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>> average!
>>
>>Incorrect.
>
> Substantiate!

Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
average.

--
-Wayne

Howard Garland
November 16th 03, 01:34 AM
John HUDSON wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>>
>>>>>How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>>lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>>deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>>
>>>>>Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>>average!
>>>>
>>>>Incorrect.
>>>
>>>Substantiate!
>>
>>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>>average.
>
>
> 50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.
>
> According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
> originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)
>
> But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
> average?

Suppose 10 deadlifters. Nine lift 400 lbs; one (me) lifts 200. The
total lifted is 3800 lbs. Average lifted is 380 lbs. Ninety percent are
above average.

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 01:35 AM
On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>
>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>
>>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>
>>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>
>>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>
>>>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>> average!
>>>
>>>Incorrect.
>>
>> Substantiate!
>
>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>average.

50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.

According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)

But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
average?

Bob Mann
November 16th 03, 01:58 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:35:14 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>> average!
>>>>
>>>>Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Substantiate!
>>
>>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>>average.
>
>50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.
>
>According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
>originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)
>
>But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
>average?
>

You have to define average.
There is mean, median and mode.
Each could be substantially different.
If the median was also the mode it could be possible to have, for
instance, 25% below, 25% above and 50% right at average.
You have to define things better than that.

I would admit to being below average on all three measures in typing
skills.
--
Bob Mann

It's always darkest just before dawn.
So, if you're going to steal the neighbour's newspaper,
That's the time to do it.

Bob Mann
November 16th 03, 01:59 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 17:18:06 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>David wrote:
>
>> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
>>
>> that
>>
>>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>>
>> loser
>>
>>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Krista
>>>
>>>All right!
>>>
>>>I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
>>>respect to math/stat skills.
>>>
>>>Howie
>>
>> Howie, I think you lied to me. You are clearly well above average
>
>Nah!

What's the allowable COD?
--
Bob Mann

It's always darkest just before dawn.
So, if you're going to steal the neighbour's newspaper,
That's the time to do it.

Keith Hobman
November 16th 03, 02:37 AM
In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> e.rogers.com>,
> >"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
> >
> >> > John HUDSON wrote:
> >> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, approx half are below the median.
> >> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
> >> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
> >> skewing things. Any ideas?
> >
> >Wow.
> >
> >Biting. As a fellow Canuck I'm quite proud of this zinger. Panache. Verve.
> >Good. Really good.
>
> Let's set a few "data" points:
>
> e.g.
>
> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>
> How many deadlift in MFW?
>
> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted by all
> deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in MFW.)

Not necessarily John.

Which is Krista's point.

Say you have 5 people. DL are 600, 575, 525, 490 and 10 lbs.

The average deadlift is 2200/5 = 440 lbs.

Only one person is below average.

Don
November 16th 03, 03:42 AM
And remember, if you are one-in-a-million, there are 6,000 people just like
you.

David
November 16th 03, 06:07 AM
"Michael and Debbie Russell" <mickndeb at westserv dot net dot au> wrote in
message .. .
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> u...
> >
> > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > David wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > >>David wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> > > >>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable
> area
> > > >>>>or capacity.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I would never admit it!!
> > > >>
> > > >>Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
> > > >>
> > > >>Howard
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > i was brought up to always strive not to be just average
> > >
> > > In that case, man, you are a success. Striving to be average is just
> > > too ****ing hard for some folks :)
> > >
> > > Howie, who is not JUST your average guy.
> >
> > in my case being below average comes natural - the challenge is being
> 'way'
> > below average - I like to stand out in a crowd
> >
> Perhaps, but being below average in this ng still leaves you in a
reasonable
> position WRT the rest of the population.
>
is that when you are down so low that you have to reach up to touch bottom?

Brian Link
November 16th 03, 06:21 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:

>
>> John HUDSON wrote:
>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>
>
>No, approx half are below the median.
>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>skewing things. Any ideas?

/raises hand

>
>Krista


Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

Brian Link
November 16th 03, 06:24 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:35:14 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>>
>>>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>> average!
>>>>
>>>>Incorrect.
>>>
>>> Substantiate!
>>
>>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>>average.
>
>50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.
>
>According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
>originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)
>
>But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
>average?
>

I dunno. A better metric would be < 50% here are "regulars" who
compete or at least are knowledgeable and experienced.

The rest are folks like me who just have an interest and lots of
questions but aren't up to "athlete" level.

So that would make a big group of newbs and wanna-bes.

OTOH, the general public (at least in the US) is in a pretty sad state
health-wise.. so it wouldn't take much to beat THAT average..

--------
Brian Link in St. Paul, Minnesota

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 07:44 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:34:32 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>
>> On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>>>lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>>>deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>>>average!
>>>>>
>>>>>Incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>Substantiate!
>>>
>>>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>>>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>>>average.
>>
>>
>> 50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.
>>
>> According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
>> originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)
>>
>> But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
>> average?
>
>Suppose 10 deadlifters. Nine lift 400 lbs; one (me) lifts 200. The
>total lifted is 3800 lbs. Average lifted is 380 lbs. Ninety percent are
>above average.

Which just goes to prove that you can do what you like with numbers.
Given that Wayne has proved 90% are below average, and you have just
proved that 90% are above average, all those two scenarios prove is
that 'false accounting' is alive and well. ;o)

So much for disproving the theory of averages with manipulation of
input data. In reality it won't work out like that because people can
and will not be manipulated so readily or easily.

It still doesn't answer the original question - "who would admit to
being below average?" ;o)

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 07:47 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:07:17 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Michael and Debbie Russell" <mickndeb at westserv dot net dot au> wrote in
>message .. .
>>
>> "David" > wrote in message
>> u...
>> >
>> > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > David wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > >>David wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> > > >>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable
>> area
>> > > >>>>or capacity.
>> > > >>>>
>> > > >>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>>I would never admit it!!
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>Howard
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > i was brought up to always strive not to be just average
>> > >
>> > > In that case, man, you are a success. Striving to be average is just
>> > > too ****ing hard for some folks :)
>> > >
>> > > Howie, who is not JUST your average guy.
>> >
>> > in my case being below average comes natural - the challenge is being
>> 'way'
>> > below average - I like to stand out in a crowd
>> >
>> Perhaps, but being below average in this ng still leaves you in a
>reasonable
>> position WRT the rest of the population.
>>
>is that when you are down so low that you have to reach up to touch bottom?

That could get you arrested; you may look but you mustn't "touch"! ;o)

>

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 07:53 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:21:07 -0600, Brian Link > wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>>
>>> John HUDSON wrote:
>>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>
>>
>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>/raises hand

You sell yourself short Brian! ;o)

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 07:59 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:24:48 -0600, Brian Link > wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:35:14 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>>
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>>> average!
>>>>>
>>>>>Incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Substantiate!
>>>
>>>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>>>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>>>average.
>>
>>50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.
>>
>>According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
>>originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)
>>
>>But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
>>average?
>>
>
>I dunno. A better metric would be < 50% here are "regulars" who
>compete or at least are knowledgeable and experienced.
>
>The rest are folks like me who just have an interest and lots of
>questions but aren't up to "athlete" level.
>
>So that would make a big group of newbs and wanna-bes.
>
>OTOH, the general public (at least in the US) is in a pretty sad state
>health-wise.. so it wouldn't take much to beat THAT average..

It was a humorous and mischievous question Brian, aimed at a group of
people bristling with testosterone and vanity!

Who among us would admit to being below average? Not me for sure! ;o)

Have a great Sunday - I intend to, although the French rugby team are
in a position to influence events in a quite extraordinary way.
<doubt>

No, no, perish the thought!! <positive thinking>

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 08:19 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:11:23 +1100, "DRS"
> wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote in message

>> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>> or capacity.
>>
>> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>
>I'm not cutting 7" off for anyone.

I gather that would leave you with an 8" stump you modest bugger! ;o)

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 08:22 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:34:59 +1100, "Michael and Debbie Russell"
<mickndeb at westserv dot net dot au> wrote:

>
>"David" > wrote in message
u...
>>
>> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > David wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > >>David wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> > >>>>Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable
>area
>> > >>>>or capacity.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>I would never admit it!!
>> > >>
>> > >>Word! Cause your a better man than I am.
>> > >>
>> > >>Howard
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > i was brought up to always strive not to be just average
>> >
>> > In that case, man, you are a success. Striving to be average is just
>> > too ****ing hard for some folks :)
>> >
>> > Howie, who is not JUST your average guy.
>>
>> in my case being below average comes natural - the challenge is being
>'way'
>> below average - I like to stand out in a crowd
>>
>Perhaps, but being below average in this ng still leaves you in a reasonable
>position WRT the rest of the population.

This is an astute observation! ;o)

>
>>
>

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 08:24 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:42:05 -0600, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>>
>>> John HUDSON wrote:
>>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>
>>
>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>Dayumn. Haven't seen anybody bitchslapped like that in quite a while.
>You really know your deviates there girlfriend.

Wishful thinking mate! ;o)

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 08:29 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:58:20 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 01:35:14 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On 16 Nov 2003 01:26:38 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote:
>>
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>>>>>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>>>>>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>>>>>> average!
>>>>>
>>>>>Incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Substantiate!
>>>
>>>Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>>>lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>>>average.
>>
>>50% is not a worse case scenario; it is a potential minimum.
>>
>>According to your submission MFW is therefore much worse than I
>>originally thought - what a bunch of losers! ;o)
>>
>>But it doesn't answer my question: who will admit to being below
>>average?
>>
>
>You have to define average.
>There is mean, median and mode.
>Each could be substantially different.
>If the median was also the mode it could be possible to have, for
>instance, 25% below, 25% above and 50% right at average.
>You have to define things better than that.
>
>I would admit to being below average on all three measures in typing
>skills.

Compared to the crap that Pat "The Bootneck" Styles contributes, your
input is a pleasure to read and understand Bob! ;o)

Have a good Sunday!

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 08:41 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:37:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> e.rogers.com>,
>> >"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > John HUDSON wrote:
>> >> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, approx half are below the median.
>> >> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>> >> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>> >> skewing things. Any ideas?
>> >
>> >Wow.
>> >
>> >Biting. As a fellow Canuck I'm quite proud of this zinger. Panache. Verve.
>> >Good. Really good.
>>
>> Let's set a few "data" points:
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>
>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>
>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted by all
>> deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in MFW.)
>
>Not necessarily John.
>
>Which is Krista's point.
>
>Say you have 5 people. DL are 600, 575, 525, 490 and 10 lbs.
>
>The average deadlift is 2200/5 = 440 lbs.
>
>Only one person is below average.

Point taken Keith, but it was necessary for you to manipulate the
input in order to disprove the assumption.

In reality that won't happen and the difference between the 'best' and
the 'worst' lifter, as you will know from competition, leaves a lot of
people of varying ability in between. If there are 100 competitors
then the people that came 51st and below are not as good as those
above them. Whether "averages" would put them in that order of merit
is a moot point!

An average is a statistical calculation, and you know what statistics
are! ;o)

Have a good Sunday; I'll tell you how mine is going when I report back
on the game!

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 08:41 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:42:59 GMT, (Don)
wrote:

>And remember, if you are one-in-a-million, there are 6,000 people just like
>you.

That's a sobering thought Don! ;o)

Dr. Dickie
November 16th 03, 10:09 AM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:37:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
wrote:

>In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> e.rogers.com>,
>> >"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > John HUDSON wrote:
>> >> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> No, approx half are below the median.
>> >> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>> >> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>> >> skewing things. Any ideas?
>> >
>> >Wow.
>> >
>> >Biting. As a fellow Canuck I'm quite proud of this zinger. Panache. Verve.
>> >Good. Really good.
>>
>> Let's set a few "data" points:
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>
>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>
>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted by all
>> deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in MFW.)
>
>Not necessarily John.
>
>Which is Krista's point.
>
>Say you have 5 people. DL are 600, 575, 525, 490 and 10 lbs.
>
>The average deadlift is 2200/5 = 440 lbs.
>
>Only one person is below average.

John's problem is an assumption of a Gauss ian distribution, which if
given a large enough sample of the population (considering we are
dealing with people) would generally be a good one; however, we a
talking about a small enough sampling that that is not a good
assumption. John needs to look up the difference between the median
and the mean.

Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

David
November 16th 03, 10:21 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:11:23 +1100, "DRS"
> > wrote:
>
> >John HUDSON > wrote in message
>
> >> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> >> or capacity.
> >>
> >> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
> >
> >I'm not cutting 7" off for anyone.
>
> I gather that would leave you with an 8" stump you modest bugger! ;o)

good you're retaining your sense of humour John, you will need it for later
tonight!
>

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 11:41 AM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:21:00 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:11:23 +1100, "DRS"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >John HUDSON > wrote in message
>>
>> >> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> >> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>> >> or capacity.
>> >>
>> >> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>> >
>> >I'm not cutting 7" off for anyone.
>>
>> I gather that would leave you with an 8" stump you modest bugger! ;o)
>
>good you're retaining your sense of humour John, you will need it for later
>tonight!

Well here we are David with humour still intact and a chance to set
the record well and truly straight next week-end. Quite frankly,
England have it all to play for, and the pressure is now very much
upon the current world champions!

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 12:26 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:09:13 -0500, Dr. Dickie
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:37:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >, John HUDSON
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:04 -0600, (Keith Hobman)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article
>>> e.rogers.com>,
>>> >"Mistress Krista" *rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > John HUDSON wrote:
>>> >> > > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> No, approx half are below the median.
>>> >> Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>> >> half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>> >> skewing things. Any ideas?
>>> >
>>> >Wow.
>>> >
>>> >Biting. As a fellow Canuck I'm quite proud of this zinger. Panache. Verve.
>>> >Good. Really good.
>>>
>>> Let's set a few "data" points:
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>>>
>>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>>>
>>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight lifted by all
>>> deadlifters in MFW / by the number of deadlifters in MFW.)
>>
>>Not necessarily John.
>>
>>Which is Krista's point.
>>
>>Say you have 5 people. DL are 600, 575, 525, 490 and 10 lbs.
>>
>>The average deadlift is 2200/5 = 440 lbs.
>>
>>Only one person is below average.
>
>John's problem is an assumption of a Gauss ian distribution, which if
>given a large enough sample of the population (considering we are
>dealing with people) would generally be a good one; however, we a
>talking about a small enough sampling that that is not a good
>assumption. John needs to look up the difference between the median
>and the mean.

This is all perfectly correct but I can't see the need to complicate
the matter. Averages are a perfectly reasonable calculation in common
use, so why would we want to manipulate the input simply to invalidate
the premise?

If we use age as an example, because there is data that cannot be
manipulated for the sake of expediency, then it might well be that the
average age of all contributors to MFW is 39. Thus some of us would be
above average age for MFW, and some of us would be below average age.

Whatever the average, derived from any data input, the number arrived
at is invariably meaningless, unless of course you object to the
assumption that some of us might be described as "below average" on
the grounds on wounded pride!

That of course was the original question: "Who here is willing to
admit that they are below average?" ;o)

David
November 16th 03, 01:01 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:21:00 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 06:11:23 +1100, "DRS"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >John HUDSON > wrote in message
> >>
> >> >> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >> >> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable
area
> >> >> or capacity.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
> >> >
> >> >I'm not cutting 7" off for anyone.
> >>
> >> I gather that would leave you with an 8" stump you modest bugger! ;o)
> >
> >good you're retaining your sense of humour John, you will need it for
later
> >tonight!
>
> Well here we are David with humour still intact and a chance to set
> the record well and truly straight next week-end. Quite frankly,
> England have it all to play for, and the pressure is now very much
> upon the current world champions!
>
True - Johnny kicked a great game. Frogs got a belting. I think we have $20
riding on the game in a week (U.S.$)?
>

Mistress Krista
November 16th 03, 02:25 PM
"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
> Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> >>John HUDSON wrote:
> >>
> >>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >
> >
> >
> > No, approx half are below the median.
> > Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
that
> > half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
loser
> > skewing things. Any ideas?
> >
> >
> > Krista
>
> All right!
>
> I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
> respect to math/stat skills.
>


While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to ask
these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything about three
dimensional statistical modeling?


Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

elzinator
November 16th 03, 02:41 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:25:26 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:

>
>"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
>> Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>> >>John HUDSON wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > No, approx half are below the median.
>> > Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
>that
>> > half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>loser
>> > skewing things. Any ideas?
>> >
>> >
>> > Krista
>>
>> All right!
>>
>> I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
>> respect to math/stat skills.
>>
>
>
>While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to ask
>these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything about three
>dimensional statistical modeling?

Don't you mean 'sadistical' modeling?

Thunder9
November 16th 03, 02:42 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:33:08 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>
>>
>>> John HUDSON wrote:
>>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>
>>
>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>
>Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
>loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
>sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".
>
>This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
>contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!
>
>Get out of that!!
>

Not everything. Even if the set of posters were a random sample
(which it is not), some distributions would be postively or negatively
skewed. Over 50% of the population has below average income. One
thing we can all know for sure... is who is above and below average in
knowledge/understanding of statistics: Krista/John. But don't take it
personally, John, because by your own logic, the only reason that you
are below average is because Krista is above average. See
http://psych.fullerton.edu/swillis/Distributions.html to learn more
about distributions.

Regards,
Thunder9

Wayne S. Hill
November 16th 03, 03:39 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:

> While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place
> as any to ask these kinds of weird questions) does anyone
> here know anything about three dimensional statistical
> modeling?
>
> Krista

I only know enough to say I won't use it. There are too many
situations where the common assumptions are unwarranted, producing
conclusions that are just plain wrong. The reliance on
multivariate statistics, as typically implemented, is holding back
medical research, IMO.

--
-Wayne

Lee Michaels
November 16th 03, 03:44 PM
"Mistress Krista" inqured
>
> While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to ask
> these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything about three
> dimensional statistical modeling?
>
>
Sorry, can't help you. I'm a four dimensional man myself.

Howard Garland
November 16th 03, 03:49 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:
> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
>
> that
>
>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>
> loser
>
>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>>Krista
>>
>>All right!
>>
>>I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
>>respect to math/stat skills.
>>
>
>
>
> While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to ask
> these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything about three
> dimensional statistical modeling?
>
>
> Krista

Do you mean something like LISREL?

Howard

Wayne S. Hill
November 16th 03, 03:57 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> "Mistress Krista" inqured
>>
>> While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place
>> as any to ask these kinds of weird questions) does anyone
>> here know anything about three dimensional statistical
>> modeling?
>>
>>
> Sorry, can't help you. I'm a four dimensional man myself.

The only disadvantage of living in four dimensions is that you
can't tie knots. Then again, you can get out of any knot tied
by a three-dimensional person, so I guess it's all relative.

--
-Wayne

John HUDSON
November 16th 03, 04:13 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:42:52 GMT, Thunder9 > wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:33:08 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:35:20 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> John HUDSON wrote:
>>>> > It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, approx half are below the median.
>>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy that
>>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real loser
>>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>>
>>Let me pander to the hyper-critical Krista, and remove the "one real
>>loser" (which to please the 'little ambulanceman we will say for the
>>sake of argument is me), which will straighten "the median".
>>
>>This will not alter the fact one little jot, that 50% of all
>>contributors to MFW are still below average - at everything!
>>
>>Get out of that!!
>>
>
>Not everything. Even if the set of posters were a random sample
>(which it is not), some distributions would be postively or negatively
>skewed. Over 50% of the population has below average income. One
>thing we can all know for sure... is who is above and below average in
>knowledge/understanding of statistics: Krista/John. But don't take it
>personally, John, because by your own logic, the only reason that you
>are below average is because Krista is above average. See
>http://psych.fullerton.edu/swillis/Distributions.html to learn more
>about distributions.

I am quite happy to come second to the gracious Krista on this issue!
No doubt there are other areas where perhaps Krista would be happy to
give me best. ;o)

It is not a competition and I am very mellow this afternoon! ;o)

Lee Michaels
November 16th 03, 04:23 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> > "Mistress Krista" inqured
> >>
> >> While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place
> >> as any to ask these kinds of weird questions) does anyone
> >> here know anything about three dimensional statistical
> >> modeling?
> >>
> >>
> > Sorry, can't help you. I'm a four dimensional man myself.
>
> The only disadvantage of living in four dimensions is that you
> can't tie knots. Then again, you can get out of any knot tied
> by a three-dimensional person, so I guess it's all relative.
>

Another big disadvantage of 4-D existance is lusting after Fifth Dimensional
Babes. (Which we can never have.)

Some things never change.

Howard Garland
November 16th 03, 04:35 PM
Mistress Krista wrote:
>
> Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I couldn't find
> any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking for, but
> I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that colleagues
> are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing these
> little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment precariousness. These
> come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for
> this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a good start for
> getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain forms of
> multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research, factors which
> render employment precarious, such as income, work arrangements, degree of
> regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
>
> What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things I
> study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change over
> time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in different
> situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
> by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show longitudinal
> changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could manipulate.
>
> I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of things that
> were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.
>
>
> Krista

LISREL would definitely be the wrong technique. What you are stating is
the concept of statistical interaction. What you want to model, is the
change in relationship between one set of variables and another over
different contexts and/or time periods. The problem is complex but not
uncommon.

If you have single measures of your independent and dependent
variables., then use an ANOVA or regression model with interaction
terms. The interactions, in this case, are best presented graphically.
If you have multiple measures of variables, then three dimensional
representations could be very useful; but I am the wrong dude to help
you with this.

Howard

Mistress Krista
November 16th 03, 04:38 PM
"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
> Mistress Krista wrote:
> > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Mistress Krista wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>John HUDSON wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No, approx half are below the median.
> >>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
> >
> > that
> >
> >>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
> >
> > loser
> >
> >>>skewing things. Any ideas?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Krista
> >>
> >>All right!
> >>
> >>I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
> >>respect to math/stat skills.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to ask
> > these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything about
three
> > dimensional statistical modeling?
> >
> >
> > Krista
>
> Do you mean something like LISREL?
>
> Howard
>

Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I couldn't find
any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking for, but
I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that colleagues
are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing these
little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment precariousness. These
come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for
this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a good start for
getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain forms of
multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research, factors which
render employment precarious, such as income, work arrangements, degree of
regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.

What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things I
study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change over
time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in different
situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show longitudinal
changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could manipulate.

I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of things that
were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.


Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

Proton Soup
November 16th 03, 06:45 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:35:06 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>
>
>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I couldn't find
>> any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking for, but
>> I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that colleagues
>> are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing these
>> little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment precariousness. These
>> come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for
>> this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a good start for
>> getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain forms of
>> multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research, factors which
>> render employment precarious, such as income, work arrangements, degree of
>> regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
>>
>> What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things I
>> study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change over
>> time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in different
>> situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
>> by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show longitudinal
>> changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could manipulate.
>>
>> I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of things that
>> were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.
>>
>>
>> Krista
>
>LISREL would definitely be the wrong technique. What you are stating is
>the concept of statistical interaction. What you want to model, is the
>change in relationship between one set of variables and another over
>different contexts and/or time periods. The problem is complex but not
>uncommon.
>
>If you have single measures of your independent and dependent
>variables., then use an ANOVA or regression model with interaction
>terms. The interactions, in this case, are best presented graphically.
> If you have multiple measures of variables, then three dimensional
>representations could be very useful; but I am the wrong dude to help
>you with this.

It's been a while since I played with multivariate random deviates. I
did modelling, which is easy if the distributions are MV-gaussian or
MV log-normal. How to represent on charts and such? Sheesh, I dunno,
I usually only cared about one output, and its SD, generally a time
series of the data and its confidence bounds. Something similar might
get at what Krista wants. If you plot the variables you want versus
time, and just below that on second chart plot covariance versus time,
you may be able to see the relationships you want.

I tell you though, if you're really interested in time-series
statistics, modelling, prediction, etc., then go take a look at what
the economists are doing. They really kick ass in this stuff.

Proton Soup

David Fields
November 16th 03, 06:56 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
> or capacity.
>
> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?

I am in the sense that I am a very easy gainer, if I look at weights wrong I
get bigger. I just haven't done **** with it and turn 37 next month! Thank
God I finally dsecided to do something with my photography or I would be
even lower on the wasteoid totem pole.
David
www.fitpix.com

Howard Garland
November 16th 03, 07:42 PM
Proton Soup wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:35:06 -0500, Howard Garland
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I couldn't find
>>>any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking for, but
>>>I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that colleagues
>>>are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing these
>>>little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment precariousness. These
>>>come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for
>>>this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a good start for
>>>getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain forms of
>>>multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research, factors which
>>>render employment precarious, such as income, work arrangements, degree of
>>>regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
>>>
>>>What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things I
>>>study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change over
>>>time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in different
>>>situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
>>>by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show longitudinal
>>>changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could manipulate.
>>>
>>>I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of things that
>>>were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.
>>>
>>>
>>>Krista
>>
>>LISREL would definitely be the wrong technique. What you are stating is
>>the concept of statistical interaction. What you want to model, is the
>>change in relationship between one set of variables and another over
>>different contexts and/or time periods. The problem is complex but not
>>uncommon.
>>
>>If you have single measures of your independent and dependent
>>variables., then use an ANOVA or regression model with interaction
>>terms. The interactions, in this case, are best presented graphically.
>> If you have multiple measures of variables, then three dimensional
>>representations could be very useful; but I am the wrong dude to help
>>you with this.
>
>
> It's been a while since I played with multivariate random deviates. I
> did modelling, which is easy if the distributions are MV-gaussian or
> MV log-normal. How to represent on charts and such? Sheesh, I dunno,
> I usually only cared about one output, and its SD, generally a time
> series of the data and its confidence bounds. Something similar might
> get at what Krista wants. If you plot the variables you want versus
> time, and just below that on second chart plot covariance versus time,
> you may be able to see the relationships you want.
>
> I tell you though, if you're really interested in time-series
> statistics, modelling, prediction, etc., then go take a look at what
> the economists are doing. They really kick ass in this stuff.
>
> Proton Soup

Yep, the economists are experts at dealing with times-series data.

Howard

Proton Soup
November 16th 03, 08:26 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:42:07 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>>>>What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things I
>>>>study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change over

Actually, now that I've had some time to think about it, this sounds a
lot like conditional probability, you know, Bayes Theorem and all
that. A "context" could simply be a probabilistic event. So,

P( A | B ) = P( B | A ) * P( A ) / P( B )

Might want to look into bayesian analysis.

>>>>time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in different
>>>>situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
>>>>by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show longitudinal
>>>>changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could manipulate.

Color is certainly one way of representing an extra dimension.

And the thing before about covariance, the correlation coefficient is
probably better, because it is "normalized" to the data.

Proton Soup

David Cohen
November 16th 03, 08:34 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote
> Howard Garland > wrote:
> >Mistress Krista wrote:
> >> Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I
couldn't find
> >> any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking
for, but
> >> I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that
colleagues
> >> are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing
these
> >> little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment
precariousness. These
> >> come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond
20/20 for
> >> this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a
good start for
> >> getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain forms
of
> >> multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research,
factors which
> >> render employment precarious, such as income, work arrangements,
degree of
> >> regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
> >>
> >> What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that
the things I
> >> study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and
change over
> >> time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in
different
> >> situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be
represented visually
> >> by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show
longitudinal
> >> changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could
manipulate.
> >>
> >> I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of
things that
> >> were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.
> >
> >LISREL would definitely be the wrong technique. What you are
stating is
> >the concept of statistical interaction. What you want to model, is
the
> >change in relationship between one set of variables and another
over
> >different contexts and/or time periods. The problem is complex but
not
> >uncommon.
> >
> >If you have single measures of your independent and dependent
> >variables., then use an ANOVA or regression model with interaction
> >terms. The interactions, in this case, are best presented
graphically.
> > If you have multiple measures of variables, then three
dimensional
> >representations could be very useful; but I am the wrong dude to
help
> >you with this.
>
> It's been a while since I played with multivariate random deviates.
I
> did modelling, which is easy if the distributions are MV-gaussian or
> MV log-normal. How to represent on charts and such? Sheesh, I
dunno,
> I usually only cared about one output, and its SD, generally a time
> series of the data and its confidence bounds. Something similar
might
> get at what Krista wants. If you plot the variables you want versus
> time, and just below that on second chart plot covariance versus
time,
> you may be able to see the relationships you want.

I really wanted to contribute something useful to this thread, but I
seem to have misplaced my Lewis Carroll Lexicon, so, never mind.

David

Proton Soup
November 16th 03, 08:47 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 20:34:40 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>I really wanted to contribute something useful to this thread, but I
>seem to have misplaced my Lewis Carroll Lexicon, so, never mind.

Eat me.

Proton Soup

David Cohen
November 16th 03, 09:44 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> >I really wanted to contribute something useful to this thread, but
I
> >seem to have misplaced my Lewis Carroll Lexicon, so, never mind.
>
> Eat me.

Proton soup gives me indigestion. I prefer a nice potato leek soup
with a bit of tabasco.

David

elzinator
November 16th 03, 11:08 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 21:44:39 GMT, "David Cohen"
> wrote:

>
>"Proton Soup" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>>
>> >I really wanted to contribute something useful to this thread, but
>I
>> >seem to have misplaced my Lewis Carroll Lexicon, so, never mind.
>>
>> Eat me.
>
>Proton soup gives me indigestion. I prefer a nice potato leek soup
>with a bit of tabasco.

You should try DNA stew sometime. It's the stuff life is made of.
Ask Mikey, he likes it.

Jose Yimpho
November 17th 03, 06:14 AM
Mistress Krista wrote:

>
> "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mistress Krista wrote:
>> > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Mistress Krista wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>No, approx half are below the median.
>> >>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
>> >
>> > that
>> >
>> >>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>> >
>> > loser
>> >
>> >>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Krista
>> >>
>> >>All right!
>> >>
>> >>I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
>> >>respect to math/stat skills.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to
>> > ask these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything
>> > about
> three
>> > dimensional statistical modeling?
>> >
>> >
>> > Krista
>>
>> Do you mean something like LISREL?
>>
>> Howard
>>
>
> Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I couldn't
> find any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking
> for, but I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that
> colleagues
> are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing these
> little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment precariousness.
> These come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond
> 20/20 for this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a
> good start for getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain
> forms of multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research,
> factors which render employment precarious, such as income, work
> arrangements, degree of regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be
> pushed further.
>
> What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things
> I study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change
> over time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in
> different
> situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented
> visually by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show
> longitudinal changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could
> manipulate.
>
> I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of things
> that were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.
>
>
> Krista
>

what?

Mistress Krista
November 17th 03, 11:32 AM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message
...
>
> I tell you though, if you're really interested in time-series
> statistics, modelling, prediction, etc., then go take a look at what
> the economists are doing. They really kick ass in this stuff.


Cool, some good ideas in these posts. Thanks. I'm not so much interested in
what the data say (because I know what they say) but rather figuring out a
useful way to represent them. I'll check out the stuff you mention, though
Bayesian analysis isn't exactly right because one can't determine exact
probabilities. This is the problem with trying to demonstrate more abstract
qualitative concepts---it usually gets reduced to something simple enough to
stick in a bivariate table, which then totally obscures any possible nuance.


Krista

--
--------------------
www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
www.trans-health.com

Bob Mann
November 17th 03, 01:15 PM
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:32:06 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:

>
>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I tell you though, if you're really interested in time-series
>> statistics, modelling, prediction, etc., then go take a look at what
>> the economists are doing. They really kick ass in this stuff.
>
>
>Cool, some good ideas in these posts. Thanks. I'm not so much interested in
>what the data say (because I know what they say) but rather figuring out a
>useful way to represent them. I'll check out the stuff you mention, though
>Bayesian analysis isn't exactly right because one can't determine exact
>probabilities. This is the problem with trying to demonstrate more abstract
>qualitative concepts---it usually gets reduced to something simple enough to
>stick in a bivariate table, which then totally obscures any possible nuance.
>
>
>Krista

That's always a problem when art tries to masquerade as science. ;-P
--
Bob Mann

It's always darkest just before dawn.
So, if you're going to steal the neighbour's newspaper,
That's the time to do it.

Rambo Four Sythia
November 17th 03, 01:38 PM
Bob Mann > writes:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:32:06 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
> *rem0vethis*> wrote:
....
>>Cool, some good ideas in these posts. Thanks. I'm not so much interested in
>>what the data say (because I know what they say) but rather figuring out a
>>useful way to represent them. I'll check out the stuff you mention, though
>>Bayesian analysis isn't exactly right because one can't determine exact
>>probabilities. This is the problem with trying to demonstrate more abstract
>>qualitative concepts---it usually gets reduced to something simple enough to
>>stick in a bivariate table, which then totally obscures any possible nuance.
>>
>>
>>Krista
>
> That's always a problem when art tries to masquerade as science. ;-P

Science without the art of presentation is mute.

--
R4S

Pierre Honeyman
November 17th 03, 04:46 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
> John HUDSON wrote:
>
> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >>John HUDSON wrote:
> >>
> >>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
> >>>
> >>> How many deadlift in MFW?
> >>>
> >>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
> >>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
> >>> deadlifters in MFW.)
> >>>
> >>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
> >>> average!
> >>
> >>Incorrect.
> >
> > Substantiate!
>
> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
> average.

No. 90% would be below the median. If you build a curve you'd soon
see that 90% are actually "average" with 1 outlier that is far above
average.

Pierre

John HUDSON
November 17th 03, 05:21 PM
On 17 Nov 2003 08:46:51 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
wrote:

>"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
>> John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> >>John HUDSON wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>> >>>
>> >>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>> >>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>> >>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>> >>> average!
>> >>
>> >>Incorrect.
>> >
>> > Substantiate!
>>
>> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>> average.
>
>No. 90% would be below the median. If you build a curve you'd soon
>see that 90% are actually "average" with 1 outlier that is far above
>average.

No doubt what you say is true Pierre, but the original premise still
stands, as all Wayne has done is to produce manipulated data simply
for the sake of argument.

The numbers he has proposed are preposterous. In reality they would be
much more meaningful and produce a realistic average. The lifters
would then fall into the category of above or below that average.

However, the question was not about how to discredit averages by data
manipulation, it was: "Who here is willing to admit that they are
below average?"

We only had two modest souls who were willing to own up to it, plus I
was delighted to admit to being below the line to Krista's superior
position! ;o)

Dan Finn
November 17th 03, 08:12 PM
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:13:32 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>> or capacity.
>>
>> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>
>I am?
>
>Howard

i have below average body fat
i have below average criminal citations
i have below average ass sag



dan finn
mfw : this ain't spa lady

John HUDSON
November 17th 03, 09:02 PM
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:12:25 -0500, Dan Finn
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:13:32 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>>> or capacity.
>>>
>>> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>>
>>I am?
>>
>>Howard
>
>i have below average body fat
>i have below average criminal citations
>i have below average ass sag

There it is Dan; you are the first to note that the question was not
necessarily casting a slur on anyone. However, the first reaction
because of vanity was to be defensive.

Averages can be user friendly too, as you have quite rightly pointed
out!

Well done! ;o)

Pierre Honeyman
November 17th 03, 10:49 PM
John HUDSON > wrote in message >...

> However, the question was not about how to discredit averages by data
> manipulation, it was: "Who here is willing to admit that they are
> below average?"

Your proposition is preposterous. The commonly accepted definition of
"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
mean on a normal curve, ie: almost everybody.

Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?

Pierre

Wayne S. Hill
November 17th 03, 10:56 PM
Pierre Honeyman wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...

>> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb.
>> One lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are
>> below average.
>
> No. 90% would be below the median.

Uh, you might want to look up your definitions.

> If you build a curve
> you'd soon see that 90% are actually "average" with 1
> outlier that is far above average.

Uh, again, you might want to check your definitions.

--
-Wayne

John HUDSON
November 17th 03, 11:14 PM
On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>
>> However, the question was not about how to discredit averages by data
>> manipulation, it was: "Who here is willing to admit that they are
>> below average?"
>
>Your proposition is preposterous.

> The commonly accepted definition of
>"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>mean on a normal curve,

No it's not; an average can be as large or small as the originator
wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be. Take
average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?

> ie: almost everybody.

So that's one criteria settled: obviously everybody in MFW.

>
>Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?

It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
they wish.

Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)

Donovan Rebbechi
November 18th 03, 04:15 AM
In article >, Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
>> John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> >>John HUDSON wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>> >>>
>> >>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>> >>>
>> >>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>> >>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>> >>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>> >>> average!
>> >>
>> >>Incorrect.
>> >
>> > Substantiate!
>>
>> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>> average.
>
> No. 90% would be below the median. If you build a curve you'd soon
> see that 90% are actually "average" with 1 outlier that is far above
> average.

When you need a good laugh, you can count on usenet.

--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dan Finn
November 18th 03, 03:05 PM
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:02:31 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:12:25 -0500, Dan Finn
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 11:13:32 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:
>>
>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>>> It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>>>> Don't ask in what area or capacity, it means in every conceivable area
>>>> or capacity.
>>>>
>>>> Who here is willing to admit that they are below average?
>>>
>>>I am?
>>>
>>>Howard
>>
>>i have below average body fat
>>i have below average criminal citations
>>i have below average ass sag
>
>There it is Dan; you are the first to note that the question was not
>necessarily casting a slur on anyone. However, the first reaction
>because of vanity was to be defensive.
>
>Averages can be user friendly too, as you have quite rightly pointed
>out!
>
>Well done! ;o)

you flatter me, thank you. I am also below average in humility. ;-)


dan finn
mfw : this ain't spa lady

Pierre Honeyman
November 18th 03, 04:35 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote...
>
> >> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb.
> >> One lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are
> >> below average.
> >
> > No. 90% would be below the median.
>
> Uh, you might want to look up your definitions.

Oops, 90% would be below mean.

Pierre

Pierre Honeyman
November 18th 03, 04:40 PM
John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
> On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
> wrote:

> > The commonly accepted definition of
> >"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
> >number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
> >mean on a normal curve,
>
> No it's not;

What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
think of a norm.

> an average can be as large or small as the originator
> wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.

It depends on what you're trying to measure.

> Take
> average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
> narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?

I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.

> >Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
> >"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
> >Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>
> It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
> up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
> they wish.

How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
example?

> Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
> tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)

**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
winter.

Pierre

Pierre Honeyman
November 18th 03, 04:42 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
> >> John HUDSON wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >> >>John HUDSON wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> How many deadlift in MFW?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
> >> >>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
> >> >>> deadlifters in MFW.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
> >> >>> average!
> >> >>
> >> >>Incorrect.
> >> >
> >> > Substantiate!
> >>
> >> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
> >> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
> >> average.
> >
> > No. 90% would be below the median. If you build a curve you'd soon
> > see that 90% are actually "average" with 1 outlier that is far above
> > average.
>
> When you need a good laugh, you can count on usenet.

That'll learn me for not refreshing my terminology before using it.

What I'm getting at is that you'd see a large spike at the 1lb mark
and one point off at 91lbs; I would propose that the "average" would
be pegged at 1lb, not 10.

Pierre

John HUDSON
November 18th 03, 05:01 PM
On 18 Nov 2003 08:40:59 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>> On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>> wrote:
>
>> > The commonly accepted definition of
>> >"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>> >number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>> >mean on a normal curve,
>>
>> No it's not;
>
>What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
>think of a norm.

To me it conjures up a figure/level at which most people might be
grouped around. Most would aspire to being above average at anything
which is remotely flattering, and below average at anything which is
seen as unflattering.

>
>> an average can be as large or small as the originator
>> wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.
>
>It depends on what you're trying to measure.

It can be almost any area you want it to be: weight, age, IQ, speed
over a given distance, sexual activity, farting frequency or length
measured in time.......... ;o)

>
>> Take
>> average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
>> narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
>easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.

Unless some of us share exactly the same date of birth date, we are
all bound to be of different/varying ages. The spread according to the
submissions I've seen here over the past 3 years, is as broad as 16 -
80+, so that would give us a very good example of an average and who
sits above and below that average.

Here is a classic example of how being below average can be a plus
(perhaps)!! ;o)

>
>> >Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>> >"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>> >Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>>
>> It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
>> up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
>> they wish.
>
>How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
>example?

By asking and defining your parameters. Or ask what I did: "Who would
admit to being below average?". They can then suggest their own
limitations or achievements.

>
>> Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
>> tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)
>
>**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
>winter.

A good short answer, or a shot in the dark. I can't see that mate! ;o)

Wayne S. Hill
November 18th 03, 06:00 PM
Pierre Honeyman wrote:

> What I'm getting at is that you'd see a large spike at the
> 1lb mark and one point off at 91lbs; I would propose that
> the "average" would be pegged at 1lb, not 10.

That's what median is for.

--
-Wayne

Donovan Rebbechi
November 18th 03, 06:14 PM
In article >, Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in message >...
>> In article >, Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
>> >> John HUDSON wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
>> >> >>John HUDSON wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> How many deadlift in MFW?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
>> >> >>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
>> >> >>> deadlifters in MFW.)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
>> >> >>> average!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Incorrect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Substantiate!
>> >>
>> >> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
>> >> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
>> >> average.
>> >
>> > No. 90% would be below the median. If you build a curve you'd soon
>> > see that 90% are actually "average" with 1 outlier that is far above
>> > average.
>>
>> When you need a good laugh, you can count on usenet.
>
> That'll learn me for not refreshing my terminology before using it.
>
> What I'm getting at is that you'd see a large spike at the 1lb mark
> and one point off at 91lbs; I would propose that the "average" would
> be pegged at 1lb, not 10.

Why redefine existing measures of central tendency when there is already a
perfectly good one that suits your purpose ? hint: it starts with "me", ends
with "an", and isn't the average.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Dr. Dickie
November 18th 03, 10:17 PM
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:38:55 GMT, "Mistress Krista"
*rem0vethis*> wrote:

>
>"Howard Garland" > wrote in message
...
>> Mistress Krista wrote:
>> > "Howard Garland" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >>Mistress Krista wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>John HUDSON wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>It is obvious that 50% of all contributors here are below average.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>No, approx half are below the median.
>> >>>Unless you know the details of the data, you cannot say with accuracy
>> >
>> > that
>> >
>> >>>half are also below the average. For example, there could be one real
>> >
>> > loser
>> >
>> >>>skewing things. Any ideas?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Krista
>> >>
>> >>All right!
>> >>
>> >>I'd say your clearly a couple of SDs above the median in mfw with
>> >>respect to math/stat skills.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a place as any to ask
>> > these kinds of weird questions) does anyone here know anything about
>three
>> > dimensional statistical modeling?
>> >
>> >
>> > Krista
>>
>> Do you mean something like LISREL?
>>
>> Howard
>>
>
>Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like (I couldn't find
>any in the info I googled). I don't really know what I am looking for, but
>I've just had this idea after looking at the radar charts that colleagues
>are using to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing these
>little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment precariousness. These
>come from tables which contain up to 8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for
>this). It seemed to me that that kind of representation was a good start for
>getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain forms of
>multifactorial experiences (in the case of their research, factors which
>render employment precarious, such as income, work arrangements, degree of
>regulatory protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
>
>What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion that the things I
>study are not only multifactorial but also context dependent and change over
>time. So, certain factors might be more or less important in different
>situations. It seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
>by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which show longitudinal
>changes. I imagined something like shapes which one could manipulate.
>
>I haven't yet found anything like this beyond representations of things that
>were already 3-d, such as weather modeling.
>
>
>Krista


Could you use principle component analysis, to look for a relationship
between multiple dimensions. I used to have freeware program called
Scout (I think), that was pretty good at principle component analysis.

Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
====================================
"Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream"
Wallace Stevens-1923
=====================================

Pierre Honeyman
November 18th 03, 10:54 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> > Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in message >...
> >> In article >, Pierre Honeyman wrote:
> >> > "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
> >> >> John HUDSON wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Wayne S. Hill wrote:
> >> >> >>John HUDSON wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Collate all personal best deadlifts in MFW?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> How many deadlift in MFW?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> What is the average deadlift in MFW? (= Total weight
> >> >> >>> lifted by all deadlifters in MFW / by the number of
> >> >> >>> deadlifters in MFW.)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Conclusion: half the deadlifters in MFW will be below
> >> >> >>> average!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Incorrect.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Substantiate!
> >> >>
> >> >> Let's say we had 10 deadlifters. Nine of them lift 1 lb. One
> >> >> lifts 91 lbs. The average DL is 10 lbs. Ninety % are below
> >> >> average.
> >> >
> >> > No. 90% would be below the median. If you build a curve you'd soon
> >> > see that 90% are actually "average" with 1 outlier that is far above
> >> > average.
> >>
> >> When you need a good laugh, you can count on usenet.
> >
> > That'll learn me for not refreshing my terminology before using it.
> >
> > What I'm getting at is that you'd see a large spike at the 1lb mark
> > and one point off at 91lbs; I would propose that the "average" would
> > be pegged at 1lb, not 10.
>
> Why redefine existing measures of central tendency

I didn't think that a "curve" was a redefinition of a measure of central tendency.

> when there is already a
> perfectly good one that suits your purpose ? hint: it starts with "me", ends
> with "an", and isn't the average.

I already admitted my terminology gaffe in another post.

Pierre

Pierre Honeyman
November 18th 03, 10:57 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message >...
> Pierre Honeyman wrote:
>
> > What I'm getting at is that you'd see a large spike at the
> > 1lb mark and one point off at 91lbs; I would propose that
> > the "average" would be pegged at 1lb, not 10.
>
> That's what median is for.

Sure.

Basically I'm attempting to point out the flaws in using the term
"average" in the way the OP was attempting to use it.

I screwed up.

I feel shame.

Pierre

Howard Garland
November 18th 03, 11:17 PM
John HUDSON wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2003 08:40:59 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
> wrote:
>
>
>>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>>
>>>On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>> The commonly accepted definition of
>>>>"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>>>>number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>>>>mean on a normal curve,
>>>
>>>No it's not;
>>
>>What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
>>think of a norm.
>
>
> To me it conjures up a figure/level at which most people might be
> grouped around. Most would aspire to being above average at anything
> which is remotely flattering, and below average at anything which is
> seen as unflattering.
>
>
>>>an average can be as large or small as the originator
>>>wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.
>>
>>It depends on what you're trying to measure.
>
>
> It can be almost any area you want it to be: weight, age, IQ, speed
> over a given distance, sexual activity, farting frequency or length
> measured in time.......... ;o)
>
>
>>>Take
>>>average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
>>>narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?
>>
>>I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
>>easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.
>
>
> Unless some of us share exactly the same date of birth date, we are
> all bound to be of different/varying ages. The spread according to the
> submissions I've seen here over the past 3 years, is as broad as 16 -
> 80+, so that would give us a very good example of an average and who
> sits above and below that average.
>
> Here is a classic example of how being below average can be a plus
> (perhaps)!! ;o)
>
>
>>>>Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>>>>"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>>>>Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>>>
>>>It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
>>>up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
>>>they wish.
>>
>>How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
>>example?
>
>
> By asking and defining your parameters. Or ask what I did: "Who would
> admit to being below average?". They can then suggest their own
> limitations or achievements.
>
>
>>>Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
>>>tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)
>>
>>**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
>>winter.
>
>
> A good short answer, or a shot in the dark. I can't see that mate! ;o)

Wow! What a thread you you started John. These posts run the gamut from
abstruse statistical discussions to philosophy. What we really need to
add is a good flame war. So I'll start it.

I was the first to admit that I'm below average for the group in
strength. In all other ways, however, I am undoubtedly way above
average for this group. To be specific:

I am much smarter than most of you dudes. Now I'm not just talking
about education (where I am probably close to the top), but "g factor",
as well.

I am certainly better looking than most of you. And if I'm better
looking than you at 57, there would have been absolutely no contest at
27, 37, or 47.

I have more sex appeal, skill, and stamina than all of you put together.
In fact, there is no man on earth who has more of these qualities than
me. I could, of course, prove this to you by having thousands
testimonials posted to the group. But that would only serve to make you
green with envy, which is not my intention here.

Howard, Howie, and all of my other manifestations.

Wayne S. Hill
November 18th 03, 11:25 PM
Pierre Honeyman wrote:

> I screwed up.
>
> I feel shame.

That's what we're here for.

8-p

--
-Wayne

Wayne S. Hill
November 18th 03, 11:33 PM
Dr. Dickie wrote:

> Mistress Krista wrote:
>>"Howard Garland" > wrote...
>>> Mistress Krista wrote:
>>> >
>>> > While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a
>>> > place as any to ask these kinds of weird questions) does
>>> > anyone here know anything about three dimensional
>>> > statistical modeling?
>>>
>>> Do you mean something like LISREL?
>>
>>Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like
>>(I couldn't find any in the info I googled). I don't really
>>know what I am looking for, but I've just had this idea
>>after looking at the radar charts that colleagues are using
>>to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing
>>these little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment
>>precariousness. These come from tables which contain up to
>>8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for this). It seemed to me
>>that that kind of representation was a good start for
>>getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain
>>forms of multifactorial experiences (in the case of their
>>research, factors which render employment precarious, such
>>as income, work arrangements, degree of regulatory
>>protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
>>
>>What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion
>>that the things I study are not only multifactorial but also
>>context dependent and change over time. So, certain factors
>>might be more or less important in different situations. It
>>seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
>>by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which
>>show longitudinal changes. I imagined something like shapes
>>which one could manipulate.
>>
>>I haven't yet found anything like this beyond
>>representations of things that were already 3-d, such as
>>weather modeling.
>
> Could you use principle component analysis, to look for a
> relationship between multiple dimensions. I used to have
> freeware program called Scout (I think), that was pretty
> good at principle component analysis.

PCA (and the related technique of SVD) makes assumptions about
the spatial distribution. In particular, it doesn't handle such
simple behaviors as a curved surface in a 3-D space in a way
that would be helpful. I think what Krista really needs is a
good 3-D (or 3-D plus color, etc.) visualization tool. I don't
have any good suggestions, though, because I typically create
such visualizations numerically when I need them.

--
-Wayne

Lee Michaels
November 18th 03, 11:58 PM
"Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Dr. Dickie wrote:
>
> > Mistress Krista wrote:
> >>"Howard Garland" > wrote...
> >>> Mistress Krista wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a
> >>> > place as any to ask these kinds of weird questions) does
> >>> > anyone here know anything about three dimensional
> >>> > statistical modeling?
> >>>
> >>> Do you mean something like LISREL?
> >>
> >>Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like
> >>(I couldn't find any in the info I googled). I don't really
> >>know what I am looking for, but I've just had this idea
> >>after looking at the radar charts that colleagues are using
> >>to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing
> >>these little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment
> >>precariousness. These come from tables which contain up to
> >>8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for this). It seemed to me
> >>that that kind of representation was a good start for
> >>getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain
> >>forms of multifactorial experiences (in the case of their
> >>research, factors which render employment precarious, such
> >>as income, work arrangements, degree of regulatory
> >>protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
> >>
> >>What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion
> >>that the things I study are not only multifactorial but also
> >>context dependent and change over time. So, certain factors
> >>might be more or less important in different situations. It
> >>seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
> >>by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which
> >>show longitudinal changes. I imagined something like shapes
> >>which one could manipulate.
> >>
> >>I haven't yet found anything like this beyond
> >>representations of things that were already 3-d, such as
> >>weather modeling.
> >
> > Could you use principle component analysis, to look for a
> > relationship between multiple dimensions. I used to have
> > freeware program called Scout (I think), that was pretty
> > good at principle component analysis.
>
> PCA (and the related technique of SVD) makes assumptions about
> the spatial distribution. In particular, it doesn't handle such
> simple behaviors as a curved surface in a 3-D space in a way
> that would be helpful. I think what Krista really needs is a
> good 3-D (or 3-D plus color, etc.) visualization tool. I don't
> have any good suggestions, though, because I typically create
> such visualizations numerically when I need them.
>

I don't have anything to contribute here as well since most of my
visualizations are of an erotic nature.

John HUDSON
November 19th 03, 12:01 AM
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:17:57 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2003 08:40:59 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>>On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The commonly accepted definition of
>>>>>"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>>>>>number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>>>>>mean on a normal curve,
>>>>
>>>>No it's not;
>>>
>>>What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
>>>think of a norm.
>>
>>
>> To me it conjures up a figure/level at which most people might be
>> grouped around. Most would aspire to being above average at anything
>> which is remotely flattering, and below average at anything which is
>> seen as unflattering.
>>
>>
>>>>an average can be as large or small as the originator
>>>>wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.
>>>
>>>It depends on what you're trying to measure.
>>
>>
>> It can be almost any area you want it to be: weight, age, IQ, speed
>> over a given distance, sexual activity, farting frequency or length
>> measured in time.......... ;o)
>>
>>
>>>>Take
>>>>average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
>>>>narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?
>>>
>>>I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
>>>easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.
>>
>>
>> Unless some of us share exactly the same date of birth date, we are
>> all bound to be of different/varying ages. The spread according to the
>> submissions I've seen here over the past 3 years, is as broad as 16 -
>> 80+, so that would give us a very good example of an average and who
>> sits above and below that average.
>>
>> Here is a classic example of how being below average can be a plus
>> (perhaps)!! ;o)
>>
>>
>>>>>Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>>>>>"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>>>>>Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>>>>
>>>>It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
>>>>up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
>>>>they wish.
>>>
>>>How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
>>>example?
>>
>>
>> By asking and defining your parameters. Or ask what I did: "Who would
>> admit to being below average?". They can then suggest their own
>> limitations or achievements.
>>
>>
>>>>Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
>>>>tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)
>>>
>>>**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
>>>winter.
>>
>>
>> A good short answer, or a shot in the dark. I can't see that mate! ;o)
>
>Wow! What a thread you you started John. These posts run the gamut from
>abstruse statistical discussions to philosophy. What we really need to
>add is a good flame war. So I'll start it.
>
>I was the first to admit that I'm below average for the group in
>strength. In all other ways, however, I am undoubtedly way above
>average for this group. To be specific:
>
>I am much smarter than most of you dudes. Now I'm not just talking
>about education (where I am probably close to the top), but "g factor",
>as well.
>
>I am certainly better looking than most of you. And if I'm better
>looking than you at 57, there would have been absolutely no contest at
>27, 37, or 47.
>
>I have more sex appeal, skill, and stamina than all of you put together.
> In fact, there is no man on earth who has more of these qualities than
>me. I could, of course, prove this to you by having thousands
>testimonials posted to the group. But that would only serve to make you
>green with envy, which is not my intention here.
>
>Howard, Howie, and all of my other manifestations.

Nothing wrong with this honest and modest submission Howard, Howie et
al, and it certainly would appear that you are well above average.

However, I think that manipulation of input data has been the most
popular response to the original question. With due regard to that I
must burst your bubble and inform you that all of the above are also
attributable to everyone at MFW, so we're all "above average", with
the exception of one notable exception, who must remain anonymous as I
am not given to trolling or flaming - as you will know!

Suffice to say that I am seriously considering killfiling the little
****!! ;o)

Howard Garland
November 19th 03, 12:19 AM
John HUDSON wrote:

> Nothing wrong with this honest and modest submission Howard, Howie et
> al, and it certainly would appear that you are well above average.
>
> However, I think that manipulation of input data has been the most
> popular response to the original question. With due regard to that I
> must burst your bubble and inform you that all of the above are also
> attributable to everyone at MFW, so we're all "above average", with
> the exception of one notable exception, who must remain anonymous as I
> am not given to trolling or flaming - as you will know!
>
> Suffice to say that I am seriously considering killfiling the little
> ****!! ;o)

Word! Although I've never been a fan of grade inflation, I have to admit
that your argument is very seductive.

Howard Garland
November 19th 03, 12:25 AM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> "Wayne S. Hill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dr. Dickie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Howard Garland" > wrote...
>>>>
>>>>>Mistress Krista wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>While we're on the subject (mfw is usually as good a
>>>>>>place as any to ask these kinds of weird questions) does
>>>>>>anyone here know anything about three dimensional
>>>>>>statistical modeling?
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you mean something like LISREL?
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm that's a good start. What do LISREL outputs look like
>>>>(I couldn't find any in the info I googled). I don't really
>>>>know what I am looking for, but I've just had this idea
>>>>after looking at the radar charts that colleagues are using
>>>>to express multivariate relationships. They're drawing
>>>>these little polygons to demonstrate degrees of employment
>>>>precariousness. These come from tables which contain up to
>>>>8 dimensions (we use Beyond 20/20 for this). It seemed to me
>>>>that that kind of representation was a good start for
>>>>getting at intersecting relationships, or mapping certain
>>>>forms of multifactorial experiences (in the case of their
>>>>research, factors which render employment precarious, such
>>>>as income, work arrangements, degree of regulatory
>>>>protection, etc.), but it could be pushed further.
>>>>
>>>>What I am trying to represent in my research is the notion
>>>>that the things I study are not only multifactorial but also
>>>>context dependent and change over time. So, certain factors
>>>>might be more or less important in different situations. It
>>>>seemed to me that somehow this could be represented visually
>>>>by 3-dimensional objects, or perhaps even 4-d ones which
>>>>show longitudinal changes. I imagined something like shapes
>>>>which one could manipulate.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't yet found anything like this beyond
>>>>representations of things that were already 3-d, such as
>>>>weather modeling.
>>>
>>>Could you use principle component analysis, to look for a
>>>relationship between multiple dimensions. I used to have
>>>freeware program called Scout (I think), that was pretty
>>>good at principle component analysis.
>>
>>PCA (and the related technique of SVD) makes assumptions about
>>the spatial distribution. In particular, it doesn't handle such
>>simple behaviors as a curved surface in a 3-D space in a way
>>that would be helpful. I think what Krista really needs is a
>>good 3-D (or 3-D plus color, etc.) visualization tool. I don't
>>have any good suggestions, though, because I typically create
>>such visualizations numerically when I need them.
>>
>
>
> I don't have anything to contribute here as well since most of my
> visualizations are of an erotic nature.

Would you say that you're above average for the group in either the
quantity of quality of your erotic visualizations?

Howard Garland
November 19th 03, 01:06 AM
elzinator wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:17:57 -0500, Howard Garland
> > wrote:
>
>
>>John HUDSON wrote:
>>
>>>On 18 Nov 2003 08:40:59 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>The commonly accepted definition of
>>>>>>"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>>>>>>number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>>>>>>mean on a normal curve,
>>>>>
>>>>>No it's not;
>>>>
>>>>What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
>>>>think of a norm.
>>>
>>>
>>>To me it conjures up a figure/level at which most people might be
>>>grouped around. Most would aspire to being above average at anything
>>>which is remotely flattering, and below average at anything which is
>>>seen as unflattering.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>an average can be as large or small as the originator
>>>>>wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.
>>>>
>>>>It depends on what you're trying to measure.
>>>
>>>
>>>It can be almost any area you want it to be: weight, age, IQ, speed
>>>over a given distance, sexual activity, farting frequency or length
>>>measured in time.......... ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Take
>>>>>average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
>>>>>narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?
>>>>
>>>>I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
>>>>easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unless some of us share exactly the same date of birth date, we are
>>>all bound to be of different/varying ages. The spread according to the
>>>submissions I've seen here over the past 3 years, is as broad as 16 -
>>>80+, so that would give us a very good example of an average and who
>>>sits above and below that average.
>>>
>>>Here is a classic example of how being below average can be a plus
>>>(perhaps)!! ;o)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>>>>>>"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>>>>>>Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>>>>>
>>>>>It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
>>>>>up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
>>>>>they wish.
>>>>
>>>>How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
>>>>example?
>>>
>>>
>>>By asking and defining your parameters. Or ask what I did: "Who would
>>>admit to being below average?". They can then suggest their own
>>>limitations or achievements.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
>>>>>tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)
>>>>
>>>>**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
>>>>winter.
>>>
>>>
>>>A good short answer, or a shot in the dark. I can't see that mate! ;o)
>>
>>Wow! What a thread you you started John. These posts run the gamut from
>>abstruse statistical discussions to philosophy. What we really need to
>>add is a good flame war. So I'll start it.
>>
>>I was the first to admit that I'm below average for the group in
>>strength. In all other ways, however, I am undoubtedly way above
>>average for this group. To be specific:
>>
>>I am much smarter than most of you dudes. Now I'm not just talking
>>about education (where I am probably close to the top), but "g factor",
>>as well.
>>
>>I am certainly better looking than most of you. And if I'm better
>>looking than you at 57, there would have been absolutely no contest at
>>27, 37, or 47.
>>
>>I have more sex appeal, skill, and stamina than all of you put together.
>> In fact, there is no man on earth who has more of these qualities than
>>me. I could, of course, prove this to you by having thousands
>>testimonials posted to the group. But that would only serve to make you
>>green with envy, which is not my intention here.
>>
>>Howard, Howie, and all of my other manifestations.
>
>
> So, are you giving out your number?
> First, how much can you bench press?

Enough to hurt myself; but perhaps not enough to hurt you, assuming that
you are above average for mfw.

elzinator
November 19th 03, 01:09 AM
On 18 Nov 2003 08:40:59 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>> On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>> wrote:
>
>> > The commonly accepted definition of
>> >"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>> >number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>> >mean on a normal curve,
>>
>> No it's not;
>
>What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
>think of a norm.
>
>> an average can be as large or small as the originator
>> wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.
>
>It depends on what you're trying to measure.
>
>> Take
>> average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
>> narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
>easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.
>
>> >Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>> >"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>> >Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>>
>> It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
>> up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
>> they wish.
>
>How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
>example?

The average in the universe of mfw is skewed relative to the average
of the total population. We are in our own legion :)
(and we are everywhere......)

>> Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
>> tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)
>
>**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
>winter.

Dude, I am so sorry.
(is that why you are called 'Pierre'?)

elzinator
November 19th 03, 01:11 AM
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:17:57 -0500, Howard Garland
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2003 08:40:59 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John HUDSON > wrote in message >...
>>>
>>>>On 17 Nov 2003 14:49:07 -0800, (Pierre Honeyman)
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The commonly accepted definition of
>>>>>"average" that laypeople think of when discussing the term is the
>>>>>number of people who fit within a couple of standard deviations of the
>>>>>mean on a normal curve,
>>>>
>>>>No it's not;
>>>
>>>What I'm getting at is that when most people think of average, they
>>>think of a norm.
>>
>>
>> To me it conjures up a figure/level at which most people might be
>> grouped around. Most would aspire to being above average at anything
>> which is remotely flattering, and below average at anything which is
>> seen as unflattering.
>>
>>
>>>>an average can be as large or small as the originator
>>>>wants it to be, which also applies to how specific it is to be.
>>>
>>>It depends on what you're trying to measure.
>>
>>
>> It can be almost any area you want it to be: weight, age, IQ, speed
>> over a given distance, sexual activity, farting frequency or length
>> measured in time.......... ;o)
>>
>>
>>>>Take
>>>>average age at MFW, which I mentioned earlier, how complicated and
>>>>narrow "within a couple of standard deviations" would that be?
>>>
>>>I don't understand what you mean by "complicated and narrow". It's
>>>easy enough to get a rough estimate if enough people respond.
>>
>>
>> Unless some of us share exactly the same date of birth date, we are
>> all bound to be of different/varying ages. The spread according to the
>> submissions I've seen here over the past 3 years, is as broad as 16 -
>> 80+, so that would give us a very good example of an average and who
>> sits above and below that average.
>>
>> Here is a classic example of how being below average can be a plus
>> (perhaps)!! ;o)
>>
>>
>>>>>Furthermore you fail to define your population(s). Do you mean the
>>>>>"average" among amateur powerlifters, community college math majors,
>>>>>Olympic sprinters, or Octagenarians?
>>>>
>>>>It was quite clearly aimed at MFW and a free choice; people can front
>>>>up and admit being below average at any discipline or character trait
>>>>they wish.
>>>
>>>How would I know what the average almost-anything is in MFW, for
>>>example?
>>
>>
>> By asking and defining your parameters. Or ask what I did: "Who would
>> admit to being below average?". They can then suggest their own
>> limitations or achievements.
>>
>>
>>>>Me? I suspect I'm below average when it comes to patience and
>>>>tolerance! How about you Pierre? ;o)
>>>
>>>**** that, I'm as patient as the day is long. In the Yukon. In
>>>winter.
>>
>>
>> A good short answer, or a shot in the dark. I can't see that mate! ;o)
>
>Wow! What a thread you you started John. These posts run the gamut from
>abstruse statistical discussions to philosophy. What we really need to
>add is a good flame war. So I'll start it.
>
>I was the first to admit that I'm below average for the group in
>strength. In all other ways, however, I am undoubtedly way above
>average for this group. To be specific:
>
>I am much smarter than most of you dudes. Now I'm not just talking
>about education (where I am probably close to the top), but "g factor",
>as well.
>
>I am certainly better looking than most of you. And if I'm better
>looking than you at 57, there would have been absolutely no contest at
>27, 37, or 47.
>
>I have more sex appeal, skill, and stamina than all of you put together.
> In fact, there is no man on earth who has more of these qualities than
>me. I could, of course, prove this to you by having thousands
>testimonials posted to the group. But that would only serve to make you
>green with envy, which is not my intention here.
>
>Howard, Howie, and all of my other manifestations.

So, are you giving out your number?
First, how much can you bench press?