Politics affects one's math ability

[TSherbs]

@deeal or aka @denial, you’ve been wrong on so many topics.

Maybe, but not as much as Paul Krugman.

Very likely false.

No, the official tally of op-eds in the NYT admitting being wrong is: Paul Krugman - 1. dneal - 0.

This is a math thread, after all; and the numbers don’t lie.

You're wrong more often than you admit, in both the NYT and in your posts.

[TSherbs]

@deeal or aka @denial, you’ve been wrong on so many topics.

Maybe, but not as much as Paul Krugman.

Very likely false.

No, the official tally of op-eds in the NYT admitting being wrong is: Paul Krugman - 1. dneal - 0.

This is a math thread, after all; and the numbers don’t lie.

If you never give an opinion, you'll never be wrong.... nor right.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

That's his greased pig evasive maneuver.

[Lloyd]

No, the official tally of op-eds in the NYT admitting being wrong is: Paul Krugman - 1. dneal - 0.

This is a math thread, after all; and the numbers don’t lie.

Numbers don't lie. However, as this thread shows, they can be misused/misinterpreted by those who lack understanding and hold biases.
Krugman got 1/N wrong (you're only citing one erroneous article),, where N>10 is the number of articles he's written for the NYT. ∴ he's wrong in <10% articles. You got 0/0 wrong. An undefined value which can not be used for proving anything.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

I doubt that you bothered to read the article, and still more that you're capable of understanding it.

You certainly display no evidence to the contrary.

Stick to your fast-twitch entertainment, YouTube and Twitter (and Fox?), and stop trying to start losing battles.

[TFarnon]

That was very interesting, although not wholly surprising. Working in science research we run the calculations irrespective of any expected or anticipated outcome. Sometimes the numbers are favourable to our theories, sometimes not, but they are what they are. We like to feel that we are objective in our approach, and backed up by peer review, but there are without doubt some quite subtle pitfalls out there. This is particularly the case with some of the more complex statistical approaches, which is why we employ independent biostatisticians to help design studies and crunch the data afterwards.

Epistomological positioning is important too.

At first I misread "peer review" as "pear review", and was thinking: "Bosc or Seckel?" I'll show myself out now.

[Chip]

Epistomological? Wowzer!

You can edit your posts.

[TSherbs]

I don't have access to this opinion piece.

I pay for a subscription: what an idea!

I enjoyed the article you pasted in, but this other comment just seems purely ornery.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Epistomological? Wowzer!

You can edit your posts.

Typo was corrected. Hardly worth a comment.

[dneal]

@deeal or aka @denial, you’ve been wrong on so many topics.

Maybe, but not as much as Paul Krugman.

Very likely false.

No, the official tally of op-eds in the NYT admitting being wrong is: Paul Krugman - 1. dneal - 0.

This is a math thread, after all; and the numbers don’t lie.

If you never give an opinion, you'll never be wrong.... nor right.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Why must I give an opinion? Can’t I just observe and discuss? Why are the only options you present to be wrong or right?

[TSherbs]

Why must I give an opinion? Can’t I just observe and discuss? Why are the only options you present to be wrong or right?

Well then stop belittling others for their opinions when they choose to share them. That you don't share opinions AND at the same time criticize others for choosing to share them is part of the basis of our objections to your dynamic. You tell people that they are wrong (biased, tribal, blinded) very frequently. You call people emotionally unstable for simply showing some passion about a topic. You clearly suggest in dozens of posts that being anything but an objective unemotional reading of certain sources (vetted by you, of course) is wrong. You have said so dozens of times, in various forms of phrasing.

To suggest here that you object to being asked to pick between right and wrong is another example of what I call your fundamental dishonesty and hypocrisy. You've come to an opinion forum among lay people with opinions, you reserve your own personal opinions on many topics, and you attack others for having them when they are shared here. This is why I accuse you of trolling.

[Lloyd]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chip]

The Krugman piece I posted is one example of how utterly mendacious and false is the Republican claim that tax cuts for the rich and corporations stimulate the economy to the benefit of all. Despite being proven wrong again and again, they continue to repeat it.

An evident lack of math skills is one reason, along with a contempt for facts. Corruption and greed also weigh in.

[Chuck Naill]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Lloyd, your pissing into the wind.

[Chuck Naill]

The Krugman piece I posted is one example of how utterly mendacious and false is the Republican claim that tax cuts for the rich and corporations stimulate the economy to the benefit of all. Despite being proven wrong again and again, they continue to repeat it.

An evident lack of math skills is one reason, along with a contempt for facts. Corruption and greed also weigh in.

The only math I’ve followed is to spend less than you make and pay cash.

[Chuck Naill]

That said, we were a one income family.

[Lloyd]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Lloyd, your pissing into the wind.

When you got to go, you got to go

[Chuck Naill]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Lloyd, your pissing into the wind.

When you got to go, you got to go

Of course, but I feel you’re not appreciating other’s perspectives.

[Lloyd]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Lloyd, your pissing into the wind.

When you got to go, you got to go

Of course, but I feel you’re not appreciating other’s perspectives.

Are you defending dneal? Do you support his not giving opinions on issues, only giving opinions (criticisms) of other's opinions?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Lloyd, your pissing into the wind.

When you got to go, you got to go

Of course, but I feel you’re not appreciating other’s perspectives.

Are you defending dneal? Do you support his not giving opinions on issues, only giving opinions (criticisms) of other's opinions?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You assume much, reminds me of Kaz.

I pay little attention to @denal anymore. He had been on the verifiably wrong side of Trump, Covid-19, and those with expertise, his posts are expected.

[Lloyd]

An ex-commander who offers no opinion.... is that the truest representation of "retirement"?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Lloyd, your pissing into the wind.

When you got to go, you got to go

Of course, but I feel you’re not appreciating other’s perspectives.

Are you defending dneal? Do you support his not giving opinions on issues, only giving opinions (criticisms) of other's opinions?

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

You assume much, reminds me of Kaz.

I pay little attention to @denal anymore. He had been on the verifiably wrong side of Trump, Covid-19, and those with expertise, his posts are expected.

Huh? I didn't assume a thing. I asked a question. See your post #38

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™