[Kabal]

(05-01-2013 10:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Indeed. Someone should proffer to actuarial scientists the scintillating insight that people aren't coins, and that we apparently cannot draw inferences on individuals from population-level data. All of their methods are wrong... somehow. "Stats have nothing to do with shit," don't they know?

Your methods are as bad as saying, "Rock stars bang tons of women, so just act like a rock star and you'll bang tons of women too."

Acting like a part of the rock star without taking into account the entire rock star's life, such as production of the music, playing on stage, etc, is folly. Likewise, thinking that raising a child by yourself is going to be the same as the way thousands of children were raised in a community is equally folly.

This thread is a great example of why math is useless without logic.

A butchered metaphor followed by another comically overconfident assertion.

Your penchant for self-parody is impressive.

You had an infinite array of metaphors to select from your imagination, and you still managed to proffer a broken one.

Hint: We are in agreement that acting like a rockstar and being a rockstar will have different effect sizes on your success with women. Think more carefully about the variation in the continuum of not acting like a rockstar to acting like a rockstar, and the variation in the continuum of not being a rockstar to actually being a rockstar, and the relationship each of the two would have with the variation in success with women--and how this might be crafted into a analogy for twin adoptions studies.