Interesting Read

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
BECAUSE THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE STUDY! THEY CHOSE TO ONLY LOOK AT ONE HALF OF THE ISSUE!

I don't disagree with your point that this is what the study did. My disagreement with the study is that it wasn't a "total picture" look and the study (or study release) erred by not making any disclaimers as to why not. This is how research is done: you state what you are going to study and then you state why you chose not to study other relevant issues. What you don't do is fail to do this and that's my problem with the release,

--- End of line (MCP)

I think we're talking past each other. You said the following:

"The purpose of this study was to look at bot-related activity as pertains to 'reopening America.'
--- End of line (MCP)
That wasn't the purpose of the study. It was just to identify and analyze the content of tweeting that exhibited bot behavior. The headline is misleading and it's influencing the way you're reading the article. I made this diagram for another poster to better illustrate what was done. I think you're confusing the purpose of the analysis with the findings of the analysis. Where am I going wrong?

148440
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Women can't reason? Ooo, a bit misogynistic, are we? I've come to expect as much from the men of your generation. It's okay, you're still learning.

LOL.... Not so fast, shorty. I was actually marveling at the fact that your gender changed between MPDs. Much cheaper than the real thing..and free to change back with next screen name you come up with.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
(a) I think we're talking past each other. You said the following:

(b) That wasn't the purpose of the study. It was just to identify and analyze the content of tweeting that exhibited bot behavior. The headline is misleading and it's influencing the way you're reading the article. I made this diagram for another poster to better illustrate what was done. I think you're confusing the purpose of the analysis with the findings of the analysis. Where am I going wrong?
(a) Could very well be. Probably so.

(b) And this is where we're talking past each other. You seem to be satisfied with what the story relates. My concern goes past what the story relates to the methodology of the study. So it would be true I am confusing the purpose with the analysis except that I'm not. Meaning, I have no problem with what they wrote as pertains to the "opening America" aspect; my problem is that they chose to only look at one half of the issue.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or pedantic here. I'm also not trying to confuse you (or anyone). My issue (as a result of too many grad school classes drilling proper methodology deep into my cranial cavity) is that the thing CMU studied has at least two facets. It is only a single-sided issue if CMU had no problem with this study being used for political purposes (be it by CMU or anyone else, be it Left or Right). If that's the case, shame on those folks. However, if CMU wanted this to be seen as a fair, statistical take on bot behavior during this "lock-down/set me free" debate it should have looked at both sides or stated why it chose to only look at one side. Otherwise, the study is implying something that may give a false impression as to what is actually going on in Botland.

Maybe this will help illustrate what I'm trying to point out. If I did a study on Soviet collectivization in the Ukraine in the late 1920s/early 1930s I could legitimately say that thousands were saved from starvation by Stalin's efforts. I could legitimately say that because it would be true. However legitimate my results were, this study wouldn't be legitimate because it failed to look at the other side of collectivization: the millions who died of starvation (and other reasons such as execution) because of Stalin's war on the kulaks to force collectivization. In other words, doing one side produces good propaganda, doing both sides produces good history. Which angle results in better analysis? I would say the study that looked at both sides.

Bottom line, my issue with the press release is not the results of the study; rather, the methodology of the study. I take no issue with the former, I take huge issue with the latter.

I did find the press release interesting. I was even a bit surprised by what CMU found (though, I guess, in retrospect I shouldn't have been). But to me, the press release begged an additional question. So yup, perhaps I expected too much. I've been told that is a problem of mine. If so, my bad.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
(a) Could very well be. Probably so.

(b) And this is where we're talking past each other. You seem to be satisfied with what the story relates. My concern goes past what the story relates to the methodology of the study. So it would be true I am confusing the purpose with the analysis except that I'm not. Meaning, I have no problem with what they wrote as pertains to the "opening America" aspect; my problem is that they chose to only look at one half of the issue.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or pedantic here. I'm also not trying to confuse you (or anyone). My issue (as a result of too many grad school classes drilling proper methodology deep into my cranial cavity) is that the thing CMU studied has at least two facets. It is only a single-sided issue if CMU had no problem with this study being used for political purposes (be it by CMU or anyone else, be it Left or Right). If that's the case, shame on those folks. However, if CMU wanted this to be seen as a fair, statistical take on bot behavior during this "lock-down/set me free" debate it should have looked at both sides or stated why it chose to only look at one side. Otherwise, the study is implying something that may give a false impression as to what is actually going on in Botland.

Maybe this will help illustrate what I'm trying to point out. If I did a study on Soviet collectivization in the Ukraine in the late 1920s/early 1930s I could legitimately say that thousands were saved from starvation by Stalin's efforts. I could legitimately say that because it would be true. However legitimate my results were, this study wouldn't be legitimate because it failed to look at the other side of collectivization: the millions who died of starvation (and other reasons such as execution) because of Stalin's war on the kulaks to force collectivization. In other words, doing one side produces good propaganda, doing both sides produces good history. Which angle results in better analysis? I would say the study that looked at both sides.

Bottom line, my issue with the press release is not the results of the study; rather, the methodology of the study. I take no issue with the former, I take huge issue with the latter.

I did find the press release interesting. I was even a bit surprised by what CMU found (though, I guess, in retrospect I shouldn't have been). But to me, the press release begged an additional question. So yup, perhaps I expected too much. I've been told that is a problem of mine. If so, my bad.

--- End of line (MCP)
Okay, but what's your issue with the methodology? It's not clear from the article that they didn't find twitter-bots talking about staying at home. That could very well be one of the findings, just not a very significant one. This is just an article about the study, not the study itself. You're focusing on the headline. The Fox News headline does not mislead you. Read that one again and see if you change your mind.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Tsk, tsk, titsbob. "may be" does not equate to "no proof". Many people have problems with statistical reasoning. In this case, "may be" means there's a statistical likelihood given the validity of the model they used. At least you're defending me against being a bot. I thank you for that.

P.S. I'm still waiting for your reply to my takedown of your misunderstanding of IQ. Shouldn't be too difficult to find the flaws in the reasoning of woman with the IQ of an 8 year old. LOL.
MAY is not a part of statistical reasoning.. MAY BE means it may be 50%... It also MAY BE 0% we can't say for sure either way. So it's NOT 50%, you can't prove that it's even 30%.. or 10%.. it MAY BE any of those, but you, and they have no proof that is.

This is a simple standard for Liberal arguments, and used a lot by Liberal Leaning Media.. works on the ignorant (apparently) which is what they depend on.

Sorry, missed your reply to the IQ statement, but yes, I understand how IQ testing, and scores work. Sorry you don't have the intellect to understand a statement like "an IQ of an 8 year old"

IQs are based on Age, and Education.. an average IQ for an 8 year old is 100.. average IQ for a 20 year old is 100.. BUT if you had an IQ of an average 8 year old, BUT you're 20 years old, your IQ would be around 60 (or lower). So yes, I understand how IQ works.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
Mmmm...let's see who's the retarded one. I made a picture for you so you can understand.
It still happens to be you!!...

And you made the picture so YOU would understand.
And with each contradicting comment you made after that shows you've only further confused yourself...
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
It still happens to be you!!...

And you made the picture so YOU would understand.
And with each contradicting comment you made after that shows you've only further confused yourself...
Now we're getting somewhere. Point out the contradiction.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
MAY is not a part of statistical reasoning.. MAY BE means it may be 50%... It also MAY BE 0% we can't say for sure either way. So it's NOT 50%, you can't prove that it's even 30%.. or 10%.. it MAY BE any of those, but you, and they have no proof that is.

This is a simple standard for Liberal arguments, and used a lot by Liberal Leaning Media.. works on the ignorant (apparently) which is what they depend on.

Sorry, missed your reply to the IQ statement, but yes, I understand how IQ testing, and scores work. Sorry you don't have the intellect to understand a statement like "an IQ of an 8 year old"

IQs are based on Age, and Education.. an average IQ for an 8 year old is 100.. average IQ for a 20 year old is 100.. BUT if you had an IQ of an average 8 year old, BUT you're 20 years old, your IQ would be around 60 (or lower). So yes, I understand how IQ works.
Education is not taken into account when calculating IQ scores. Also, IQ scores remain remarkably consistent. If I had an IQ of 60 or lower at age 20, I would also likely have had a similar IQ at age 8. What I think you were trying to say is, "You dumb," but you attempted to sound intelligent in the process. If I were 35, would the statement "You have the IQ of a 22 year old" mean the same thing? Of course not. (Since fluid intelligence begins to decline after your early 20's, this might actually be a complement!) IQ is not a direct measure of cognitive ability, it's a measure of relative cognitive ability.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Ever thought of addressing questions about Louise to Louise? Obviously not, but thanks for the confirmation. Brain dead as diagnosed.
:crazy:
I do all the time but she doesn't engage with the argument. You're calling me brain dead because I correctly predicted she would do what she did. My questions "about" Louise were rhetorical.

Let me rephrase so you'll understand:

Louise didn't engage with the argument. Louise didn't present evidence. Louise didn't cite text. Louise didn't explain her reasoning.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
BECAUSE THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE STUDY! THEY CHOSE TO ONLY LOOK AT ONE HALF OF THE ISSUE!
As Greg Gutfeld very often says "if it always goes one way on an issue - you cannot claim a lack of bias".

The universe just doesn't work that way.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Education is not taken into account when calculating IQ scores. Also, IQ scores remain remarkably consistent. If I had an IQ of 60 or lower at age 20, I would also likely have had a similar IQ at age 8. What I think you were trying to say is, "You dumb," but you attempted to sound intelligent in the process. If I were 35, would the statement "You have the IQ of a 22 year old" mean the same thing? Of course not. (Since fluid intelligence begins to decline after your early 20's, this might actually be a complement!) IQ is not a direct measure of cognitive ability, it's a measure of relative cognitive ability.
If you don't understand, just say you don't understand.. I'm not sure I can dumb it down for you any further.
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
LOL.... Not so fast, shorty. I was actually marveling at the fact that your gender changed between MPDs. Much cheaper than the real thing..and free to change back with next screen name you come up with.
Are you saying Skidmark Tempest claims to be a woman?
 
Top