Re: Experienced Statistician to help decide whether a regression is legitim
- From: "Reef Fish" <large_nassua_grouper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:33:09 -0700
Anahita wrote:
Anahita wrote:
I didn't realize how long a single conversation we
had! For this reply, I'll cut out
MOST of what we had discussed already and comment
only on a few.
.. however as a devils advocate... some malpracticeis really based on "ignorance" (which is bliss!)- and
this ignorance is "good faith"...
Most malpractice ARE based on "ignorance", but I was
talking about my experience in THIS group, that after the
malpractice had been explained and re-explained a dozen times, the same
person continues to argue that it's not malpractice --
that's ignorance of a different kind -- refusal to LEARN, because I
always point to reputable books and articles that corrects the
malpractice, but the few frequent malpractioners in sci.stat.math
seldom ever read those references and continued to wallow in
their BLISS of ignorance.
hmm well if it is so, it is indeed rather a sign of stubbornness
Most of the malpractice I found here are NOT in
research, but merely executing simple applied tasks that can hardly
be considered research.
Agreed...
So it really are deficiencies
that resulted in malpractice. I think what I've seen here (for
the most part) are beyond a lack of modesty.
NOW that I know you studied Bayesian statistics seriously
(from what you said below about reading Savage) you should
see in a present thread the complete bankrupcy of Uebersax,
Bob O'Hara, and Wisenmius in the subject -- the first two for
even giving advice to others, and the latter for asking a
questions that immediately betrayed his complete ignorance.
Then there is the re-appearance of Luis A. Afonso. He has
to be seen to believe. He spent nearly a month testing the
hypothesis which he stated as Ho: 3/13 < 8/13, to Jack
Tomsky and my delight of ridiculing him that we already knew
for 100% certainty that the Ho is true. :-)
These are the kind of buffoons you'll find in THIS group.
Furtunately, there are not many more of them.
I was aware of this kind of program from my
colleagues at the University of Chicago, Harry Roberts in particular,
who told me many of the things the Executives do in their
classes. I didn't teach any of the Exec Program courses until 1982 when
I was a Visiting Prof at the MBA Exec Program at
Vanderbilt. It was a most rewarding experience to find the
eager-to-learn EXECS (most CEO and high level managers) who were NOT the
brightest students in statistics, yet they were genuinely interested
This is a good start...but people with more maturity become more genuinely interested often enough...
It's all the sign of maturity and genuine interest that matters.
That was the only time in my academic career
that I had an Exec student writing me after the course was all
over and he received a D how he appreciated my efforts. In
some way, that was A high point of my career, tobe genuinely
thanked by a student who made a "D" in my course.
Elsewhere I've been taken to the bonfire for lynching when the
students did not get the grade they thought they deserve but
didn't.
Ahaha.. oh yes... and that is how these students that should not have earned their grade become phds and then professors or work as experts.. and do not do good work.. yes yes..
Fortunately most of them don't get even close to a PhD let alone
considered an expert by anyone, except in newsgroups. :-)
That group of MBA Execs invited me back to their Reunion
(at their expense, and I was the only one so invited out side
of Vanderbit) 5 years later, when I was a Visiting Prof at Harvard.
Well bravo.. means you did succeed in making them feel they had learnt something...
That is rewarding...
That was a once in a life time experience for me, and I treasured it.
however I see a few points I can state here:become a mathematician or a statistician.. so going
first it does take quite a lot of perspiration to
through a few
courses if it might enlighten you somewhat doesn'tmake you all of a sudden a "magus of statistics"..
Of course not. But at the hands of good professors
such as Harry Roberts and a few others, they are orders of
magnitude better than those managers who had NOT been through the few
courses of education on how statistics is properly used.
Agreed and that is superb!
Second those managers who have/take their sparetime to go through these courses might be mostly
those who think it matters... (selection bias?)...
Possibly. But if they are already CEOs, it becomes
mostly one of the desire to learn and be a BETTER CEO. There are
always exceptions of course.
Of course was just stressing the fact
My co-author and former colleague Harry V. Roberts of
the University of Chicago had been a strong moving
force in that program
at Chicago as well as in the movement to educate the
Management.
Send him my belated congratulations for his dedication.
Perhaps you didn't have a web brower to read what's
in the URL.
I confess I did not think of checking the URL I shall now
I regret to say that it is too belated. Because the page was an
obiturary of his death in 2004. That was during the YEARS of
my complete disassociation with ALL statisticians and ALL statistics
(from about 2000 to 2005 when I re-started in sci.stat.math) because
of my disgust with what the Educational Institutions did to reward
the professors who did not TEACH but gave out high grades -
Yes.. sad eh...
So, it was my deepest regret that I didn't even know
John Tukey
Was a great great guy..
died until two years later, and that I didn't know
Harry died until fairly recently.
He was a remarkable human being. The webpage highlighted
that he was a Bayesian which not many people knew. I've
stated several times in this group that I learned my Bayesian
Statistics from L.J. Savage, Harry Roberts, and few other
Wow!!! A real Bayesian ! hey that is really a good piece of information! I read Savage when I was working on decision under uncertainty issues so I'll come to you once with questions.. I also followed two summer schools on imprecise probability.
I'd really like to understand a little more about what is Bayesian statistics..
I always recommend the Psychological Review (1963) paper by
Edwards, Lindman, and Savage to everyone -- so does Savage
himself, because he used it in a semester course on Bayesian
Statistics at Yale and it's a remarkably DEEP paper for its very
elementary mathematical level of exposition.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/041007/obit-roberts.shtm
That is the page about Harry Roberts.
#> Toward the end of his career, Roberts helped
develop a curriculum in
#> Total Quality Management at the GSB.
Here, with all due respect, are you sure that this
is a good criterion? After all division of labor is
about everybody should be doing that for which he is
best qualified.. I guess managers should manage and
statistician "statisticize"
Yes, but in an industry which so much depends on the
research and study BASED on statistical data,
You are very right in that respect... stats are everywhere.. now it is a guarantee of "truth" and when you see sometimes how it is done.. I cry!
Even I a non-statistician..
< snip >
hmmm that was my reason to leave academia... this...
"tolerant" attitude to "low or nonsensical" research
Me too. So, we have at least that much IN COMMON
for our reasons to leave academia. :-)
Publish or Perish is ALMOST
as bad as "Give grades to please the students because
they pay the tuition -- forget about teaching them anything."
Both are deviant to what I believed was science... uninteresting papers by millions, lack of originality, uniformism, bad courses, and decreasing rigor..
But being human (or pescan?)
Piscean I should have written...
Ah, that's Spanish for "the fish", and I thought you were French.
For a second, I thought you were referring to some poster
who pasted with the name "pescaand"
< snip >
C'est la vie. We are not living in Utopia. We
have both seen the Real World. Kicking a strawman is easy to do.
Recognizing and appreciating a solid statistician is a much harder
task.
I think so...
Another French say says: "avec des si on met Paris
en bouteille" meaning that whith a causal chain of
"if"s you can even bottle "Paris".. i.e. manage the
impossible..
That sounds like my mentor's favorite saying against
Fisher's idea of randomization: "What if you throw up a
group of blocks
of letters and it fell spelling 'C H R I S T M A S'"?
Joli.
In any case thank you for your refreshing thoughts
and the story of the courses for manager.. the US is
always in advance!
Touche. The US is in advance in some small areas.
The US remains foreever behind in the math and science areas
in spite of having the best in the same areas. That's
because the best FEW are at the tail of the dog. They cannot wag the
dog, the ever content we-are-the-best majority even if they
ranked FAR behind most countries, even a few in the 3rd world,
on math related areas.
The wheel will turn again in some time...
again thank you very much, Monsieur, for the chat! Anahita
The pleasure is mine. Merci.
-- Reef Fish Bob,
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Testing for normality
- Next by Date: Re: different priors (flat, uniform, etc)
- Previous by thread: Re: Experienced Statistician to help decide whether a regression is legitim
- Next by thread: Re: Experienced Statistician to help decide whether a regression is legitimate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
