Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Bill Wright wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

But it *is* allowed.

BugBear

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Ivan wrote:
"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and
has promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works
to become a major player in the market."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/23/richard-desmond-channel-five1

Not the first time the Daily Express and C5 have been part of the same
organisation.

At one time they were part of United News & Media (which owned Anglia TV as
well).

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.

I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.
Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...
So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

Particularly odd for a 'dictionary' to say that a series of things that
have quite different meanings in statistics are 'synonyms'. Perhaps they
don't even know the meaning of 'synonym'. :-)

Oh well, given that 'English' ends up being defined by useage I assume
this will become established as the general usage. Not unusual for
terms in daily common use to be assigned a different meaning to when
specialists use the same word. a la muddles over 'weight' and 'mass'
and of course 'energy' and 'power'.

Channel and channel
Speed and velocity
satellite and Sky
Freeview and Freesat
Digital and good
Analogue and bad

OK, these are silly examples. But I wonder if there are words that
originally had a meaning in common parlance, and were then used by
specialists but with a narrower meaning, after which said specialists
would throw up their hands in horror when the word was used in the
original way.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical and
non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Particularly odd for a 'dictionary' to say that a series of things that
have quite different meanings in statistics are 'synonyms'. Perhaps they
don't even know the meaning of 'synonym'. :-)

Words do not have to have identical meanings to be classed as synonyms
but the meanings do need to be close, possibly overlapping.

"Mean (average), mode and median are all "measures of central tendency"
but I agree that they are not reaaly close enough to be described as
synonyms.

Oh well, given that 'English' ends up being defined by useage I assume
this will become established as the general usage. Not unusual for
terms in daily common use to be assigned a different meaning to when
specialists use the same word. a la muddles over 'weight' and 'mass'
and of course 'energy' and 'power'.

This sometimes happens when science adopts an existing word and uses it
with a limited meaning.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

bugbear wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

But it *is* allowed.

In the strict sense that you don't get thrown into prison for it, yes,
it's allowed. But those looking for a research grant or hoping for a
long career and advancement have good reasons to avoid the study of the
correlation between race and intelligence, and also anything that
questions the global warming religion.

Those like Prof Rushton are very secure and can basically do what they
like. It's a bit different for younger people, who have to toe the
official line.

It's the same in a lot of other areas of course. In teaching it would be
very dangerous to remark, for instance, that the Afro-carribean boys
seem to be more aggressive in the playground.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical and
non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying 'central
tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

--
Max Demian

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

But it *is* allowed.

In the strict sense that you don't get thrown into prison for it, yes,
it's allowed. But those looking for a research grant or hoping for a
long career and advancement have good reasons to avoid the study of the
correlation between race and intelligence, and also anything that
questions the global warming religion.

How much experience have you had of either sitting on the relevant funding
panels or acting as a referee for the applications they get?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Max Demian
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical
and non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying
'central tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

I'm quite happy to say it is "wrong" on the following basis.

That in general the mean, mode, and median all can return quite different
values for a given set of data. Indeed, there are also a set of different
sub-types of 'mean'. So as soon as you allow a term like "The Average"
(note use of definite article) to mean *all* of them symultaneously (i.e.
as "synonyms") you end up with statements that will in general be false
and/or misleading unless carefully qualified and explained in each case.

I can appreciate that in general common language there will be no awareness
of any distinction - as with other examples like the ones Bill and I listed
- and general dictionaries may reflect that. But for people who know about
or need to use stats correctly, trying to use the same word to mean all of
them without specifing in each situation is a recipy for confusion and
error. The ambiguity clouds clear communication and thought.

Which of the above do you define as your phrase "central tendency" and what
formula would you use for it given a set of data values?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:54:23 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical and
non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying 'central
tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

My problem with that wide use of "average" is that to me "average" means
"mean" and only "mean".

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:54:23 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:


The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying
'central tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

My problem with that wide use of "average" is that to me "average" means
"mean" and only "mean".

This seems a nice example of a situation where a useage may be OK in
general hand-waving terms in casual conversations, but lead to serious
muddles and errors as soon as anyone tries to become specific.

So when people argue in a pub about some vague and sweeping term like "the
average man" they probably neither know nor care about the differences
between mean (of various kinds), mode, and median.

But as soon as a value is given as "The Average" then they may become
misleading or confusing since many different values could be quoted as "The
Average" of exactly the same data set if you can't be bothered and blindly
use "Average" to mean *all* of the mean(s), mode, and median values without
saying *which one* you are using.

Maybe it was one of the select band with a negative IQ who thought this
made sense. That reminds me, I must look up Erf(100/15)... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html