Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Prime vs zoom - which ones give better IQ
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 197492" data-attributes="member: 13090"><p>I'm curious what field you work or have experience in that deems a single data point a better indicator of overall performance than a cross-sectional performance-based average? Who is this "we" you refer to? Because that sounds like that tired, old and baseless argument of "that's how everyone else does it!" (cue the crickets chirping in the background and tell the Tumbleweed he's "on" in three... two... one...) as absolutely no one rises to defend this premise. And lastly, how is a performance-based average a misinterpretation of the data you supplied? Do you have issues with my calculations? If I've miscalculated please point out the error. It appears to me you are looking for evidence in support of your belief and are doing so to the exclusion of contradictory evidence. Anyone who points out this flaw in your logic you attack, saying they are, "misinterpreting" the facts.</p><p></p><p>Well, there's a word for this act of selecting data that conforms to a predetermined or desired outcome, and to the exclusion of contradictory data; it's called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29" target="_blank">Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence</a> or, more commonly perhaps, "cherry picking". You might also want to look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias" target="_blank">Confirmation Bias</a> at your leisure.</p><p></p><p>Lastly, climb off that high horse of yours thinking you've got us all in a dither over here like a bunch of nervous school-girls because you manage to post a table of what you simply expected us to accept as proof of your claims. You posted some data and made some comments. Some others here, myself included, happen to disagree with you on the finer points. To that end I have posted my thought's and calculations backing up my assertions. What I absolutely don't need to do is stoop to insults and name calling, implied or otherwise; I save *that* sort of thing for those people here on the forums I really, really like. </p><p></p><p>I am curious one, however, and so look forward to your considered response to the questions in my opening paragraph.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">......</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 197492, member: 13090"] I'm curious what field you work or have experience in that deems a single data point a better indicator of overall performance than a cross-sectional performance-based average? Who is this "we" you refer to? Because that sounds like that tired, old and baseless argument of "that's how everyone else does it!" (cue the crickets chirping in the background and tell the Tumbleweed he's "on" in three... two... one...) as absolutely no one rises to defend this premise. And lastly, how is a performance-based average a misinterpretation of the data you supplied? Do you have issues with my calculations? If I've miscalculated please point out the error. It appears to me you are looking for evidence in support of your belief and are doing so to the exclusion of contradictory evidence. Anyone who points out this flaw in your logic you attack, saying they are, "misinterpreting" the facts. Well, there's a word for this act of selecting data that conforms to a predetermined or desired outcome, and to the exclusion of contradictory data; it's called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29]Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence[/url] or, more commonly perhaps, "cherry picking". You might also want to look up [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias]Confirmation Bias[/url] at your leisure. Lastly, climb off that high horse of yours thinking you've got us all in a dither over here like a bunch of nervous school-girls because you manage to post a table of what you simply expected us to accept as proof of your claims. You posted some data and made some comments. Some others here, myself included, happen to disagree with you on the finer points. To that end I have posted my thought's and calculations backing up my assertions. What I absolutely don't need to do is stoop to insults and name calling, implied or otherwise; I save *that* sort of thing for those people here on the forums I really, really like. I am curious one, however, and so look forward to your considered response to the questions in my opening paragraph. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]......[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Prime vs zoom - which ones give better IQ
Top