Snit
Posts:
25
Registered:
6/15/12
|
|
Re: OT: Summarization of Snit's 'Statistical Analysis' argument - Re:
Visualizing where to draw the standard deviation line
Posted:
Jun 19, 2012 2:02 AM
|
|
On 6/18/12 9:15 PM, in article
708534c3-a8f3-462b-924c-c6a41f68696b@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Onion
Knight" <onionknightgot@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 10:45 pm, Steve Carroll <fretwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 3:11 pm,Snit<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What I did not do, of course, was show that this increase was based on the
>>> *causative* factors I spoke of
>>
>> Bullsh*t... the facts show that you even called it an "overall
>> claim" (which clearly places it in the realm of causation) that UI
>> improvements **will** (this one word highlights your lie here) bring
>> new users:
>>
>> "Now I have theories and reasons for this - and, frankly - it would
>> not really be contrary to my overall claims that focus on the UI, if
>> successful, will bring new users." -Snit
>>
>> That's clearly a 'cause and effect' statement if there ever was one.
>> That you have the nerve to say you're speaking outside the realm of
>> causation is absurd.
>>
>>> - I was very clear the data merely correlated
>>> with the prediction I made based on those factors. You got confused between
>>> causation and correlation... as did cc.
>>
>> You're confused and you're lying... and no one is falling for it.
>
> You have no clue what the fuck you are talking about. Even your own
> quotes show Snit making a prediction based on causes he thinks will
> lead to a change. Then he showed that the change correlated with the
> prediction. In 2011. He admitted it did not in 2012.
>
> You are too fucking stupid to understand causation and correlation.
As noted elsewhere: Steve confuses the concepts of showing a correlation,
which I did (my vague prediction correlated well with the data of the latter
half of 2011) and proof of causation (something I never said the data
proved).
It really is not a hard concept... Carroll simply screwed up based on his
own ignorance and is now lying. Oh well. That is what Carroll does.
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
|
|
