From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Fri Oct 18 2002 - 22:26:52 MDT
chris@pancrit.org (Chris Hibbert) writes:
>The narrower sense of nonsense that I intended when I wrote
>
> > Any studies done in the US that try to correlate
> > anything with Race are nonsense
>
>is easier to explain. As Les pointed out, the classification systems
>that have been used in this country for several hundred years have
>extremely low correlation with the underlying partially segregated
>breeding stocks.
He pointed out that the correlation is less than 1. "Extremely low"
suggests that it is below 0.1. Nothing that I have read suggests that
it is below 0.9.
>That means that Herrnstein and Murray couldn't have had any base data
>to work from that was meaningful on the subject of correlations between
>intelligence and race. Any studies that base a conclusion on this
>level of classification of the race of the participants are nonsense.
>
>Does that give you enough more understanding of what I was getting at
>to allow you to discuss my claim?
It seems to confirm my guess that you are claiming that the existence of
noise in data shows that the data have a signal to noise ratio of zero.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:39 MST