The New Planet - VS-Planet Forums

You are not logged in. [Log In] VS-Planet » Forums » VS-Planet Town Square » 'Zzat Guy's Mixed Up Watering Hole and Grill » The New Planet

Page 6 of 8

6

Topic Options

#32632 - 03/16/07 06:20 PM Re: The New Planet
vvvm vvvm Planeteer Registered: 07/29/05 Posts: 19598 Loc: Clark & Washington	Quote: Originally posted by Dave Morris: For example, you take a football stadium filled with people. I am saying that a national random study on child abuse would apply to that group. Acuz I find this intersting, then, I wanna axe, don' that jes' show the point, in that the VSP iz slitely smaller than a football stayum, if no less rowdy? _________________________ VSPlanutt Arteeste Toonajz . Sum mo' choonz. Da Blog. Spankin' trolls and makin' 'em cry since the last century.
Top

#32633 - 03/16/07 06:43 PM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by paulb: It requires the assumption that being a musician or recordist has no correlation to the factor being measured. Has a basis for that assumption been established? Not to my knowledge. Nor to brown eyed people, tall people, plumbers or pretty well any human factor. This is where common sense and experience has to come in. I said every time that it was highly likely that there was no correlation between recording musicians and child abuse. I mentioned the fact that child abuse happens long before we chose our hobbies, and I also doubt strongly that being abused as a child would strongly lead you to buying Roland gear as an adult. So in my mind, there is no reasonable basis for concluding that the national study doesn't apply here I can't state with 100% certainity there is no correlation. To do that, you would have to do a national study on recording musicians, factor in equipment biases, and then apply the child abuse percentage here. I can't really say it any clearer than that.
Top

#32634 - 03/16/07 06:50 PM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by vvvm: Quote: Originally posted by Dave Morris: For example, you take a football stadium filled with people. I am saying that a national random study on child abuse would apply to that group. Acuz I find this intersting, then, I wanna axe, don' that jes' show the point, in that the VSP iz slitely smaller than a football stayum, if no less rowdy? I did say several times, that the only factor that would matter is the size of the group. A group of one has no statistical significance. A football stadium is very significant. The VSPlanet is somewhere in between, depending on what number is used. 16000, is very significant. But even a number of 200 is quite significant. All it does is change the confidence level, or the error factor. It doesn't invalidate the analysis.
Top

#32635 - 03/16/07 06:54 PM Re: The New Planet
AL AL the last rock hope Loquacious Planeteer Registered: 04/16/99 Posts: 75734 Loc: Walmartville	I don't even see the relevance of this tangent. It has nothing to do with what the thread is about. _________________________ . "I am only in this forum to ridicule you" - BmC
Top

#32636 - 03/16/07 07:12 PM Re: The New Planet
paulb paulb Planeteer Registered: 06/25/03 Posts: 23691 Loc: Rural Kansas. Sometimes in Oz.	It's more of a co-tangent. A form of intelligent hijacking. $\:\)$
Top

#32637 - 03/16/07 07:13 PM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by Al: I don't even see the relevance of this tangent. It has nothing to do with what the thread is about. Like any tangent, it takes on its own relevence. This bit is now a discussion on statistics.
Top

#32638 - 03/16/07 07:43 PM Re: The New Planet
Mike Musgrove Mike Musgrove Planeteer Registered: 05/06/03 Posts: 4312 Loc: DFW Texas	I'll side with Geo on this one. There is nothing touchy feely about statistics. It is simply math. Random sampling techniques are not always obvious in their design. If memory serves me, Geo is a shrink, and therefore well versed in statistics as it is a huge part of the research in his field. Don't post much these days...but I happen to have some time on my hands. I think what has been lost is not whether anyone is correct in making assumptions about Planeteer child molestation statistics. It is using the assumption (right or wrong) as part of an explanation as to why Planeteers are fucked up. Don't know if thats bannable or not and don't care. It IS, however, weird. Having said that, I am well aware my vote doesn't count since I'm one of something like 17 million Texans that are COLLECTIVELY responsible for screwing up the entire world. _________________________ Mike Musgrove
Top

#32639 - 03/16/07 07:49 PM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by Mike Musgrove: I'll side with Geo on this one. There is nothing touchy feely about statistics. It is simply math. Random sampling techniques are not always obvious in their design. If memory serves me, Geo is a shrink, and therefore well versed in statistics as it is a huge part of the research in his field. Mike, did I say statistics were touchy/feely ? I have tried to explain the math process. I am an economist, and I have done many many statistical samplings, and I can tell you that random national studies are used all the time to do local trend forecasting, which is what we are talking about here. Which part of my analysis do you disagree with ?
Top

#32640 - 03/16/07 07:52 PM Re: The New Planet
Big Juju Big Juju Planeteer Registered: 10/19/04 Posts: 187 Loc: Toronto, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by Dave Morris: Given that the child abuse statistics cover a broad socio economic front, it seems highly unlikely that the fact that we are all musicians would invalidate that. The only way to be sure of that would be to take a national survey of all musicians with Roland recorders, find out what % had been abused, and apply that here. That seems silly, especially as none of us were musicians when we were abused as children were we ? Numerous studies have shown that artistic people have much higher incidences of mood disorders, such as depression and bipolar syndrome, than does the general population (over 30% for musicians, roughly 50% for poets - and songwriters could be considered poets of sorts, I suppose). The same is true for people who experience chronic abuse or neglegt as children. Isn't it possible that there's a correlation? Maybe, even though none of us were musicians when we were abused as children, many of us became musicians (or songwriters) as a consequence of said abuse?
Top

#32641 - 03/16/07 08:09 PM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by Big Juju: Quote: Originally posted by Dave Morris: Given that the child abuse statistics cover a broad socio economic front, it seems highly unlikely that the fact that we are all musicians would invalidate that. The only way to be sure of that would be to take a national survey of all musicians with Roland recorders, find out what % had been abused, and apply that here. That seems silly, especially as none of us were musicians when we were abused as children were we ? Numerous studies have shown that artistic people have much higher incidences of mood disorders, such as depression and bipolar syndrome, than does the general population (over 30% for musicians, roughly 50% for poets - and songwriters could be considered poets of sorts, I suppose). The same is true for people who experience chronic abuse or neglegt as children. Isn't it possible that there's a correlation? Maybe, even though none of us were musicians when we were abused as children, many of us became musicians (or songwriters) as a consequence of said abuse? You may be confusing causation with correlation. Just because there is a correlation between child abuse and depression, and artists and depression, doesn't mean that child abuse causes musicianship. There is also a correlation between diet and depression, and certain brain chemicals and depression. Its more likely they became artists because they were depressed, not depressed because they were artists.
Top

#32642 - 03/16/07 08:20 PM Re: The New Planet
paulb paulb Planeteer Registered: 06/25/03 Posts: 23691 Loc: Rural Kansas. Sometimes in Oz.	Right, I agree, but in my questioning of whether an ample assumption has been established, it further goes to question whether the correlation has been disestablished. I mean, causation does not equal correlation, but can't it be a part of the forumulae? Mustn't that be ruled out? For example: X causes Y. Even though other factors can cause Y, we are measuring Y. Therefore, a possible correlation between X and Y must be quantified in order to study Y in comparison to a random sample, or even to establish whether Y can be considered to be a random sample.
Top

#32643 - 03/16/07 08:21 PM Re: The New Planet
paulb paulb Planeteer Registered: 06/25/03 Posts: 23691 Loc: Rural Kansas. Sometimes in Oz.	btw...I have no opinion on the subject that statted this discussion, just an interest in what you have been talking about.
Top

#32644 - 03/16/07 08:54 PM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by paulb: Right, I agree, but in my questioning of whether an ample assumption has been established, it further goes to question whether the correlation has been disestablished. I mean, causation does not equal correlation, but can't it be a part of the forumulae? Mustn't that be ruled out? For example: X causes Y. Even though other factors can cause Y, we are measuring Y. Therefore, a possible correlation between X and Y must be quantified in order to study Y in comparison to a random sample, or even to establish whether Y can be considered to be a random sample. The problem is that you would never reach an end. Don't forget you are dealing with statistics that use built in error factors, and confidence levels to deal with unknown factors. In a perfect world you would eliminate every possible correlation, or bias, to come up a 100% accurate analysis. In reality, its not possible, or even desirable. You have to remember what the purpose is. Its not to measure accurately the size of an atom. Its to reasonably predict, with reasonable accuracy, certain conclusions, so you can make reasonable decisions. In this case, it was all about whether the Planet membership would be affected by the national statistics on child abuse. It doesn't matter if it is off a percentage point. As a matter of interest, if you accept JujU's contention regarding depression, then it would just indicate that the planeteers could be even higher than the national average - which is how this debate got started in the first place.
Top

#32645 - 03/16/07 11:21 PM Re: The New Planet
paulb paulb Planeteer Registered: 06/25/03 Posts: 23691 Loc: Rural Kansas. Sometimes in Oz.	I agree, and understand, but that does not erase my question in this particular instance. While these studies cannot give us certainty, we do want to make them as scientifically valid as possible, right? I'm not against using what's reasonably available and error factors, and postulating from there, I was simply asking if this has been done. Quite honestly, I even feel that way about the national stats. Why? Because I've worked in two positions which had an unusually high percentage of false claims. These claims were made for various reasons from custody battles to false financial motives. How many times may such plots have succeeded? There have also been studies that have shown how easily false allegations and even confessions can be, and have been made, again for various reasons. Then, as has been stated, there are unknown unreported cases that really did happen. So on both sides, we don't appear to have a clear understanding what the numbers really are, and many reports seem to sweep these things under the rug, sometimes by using 'error factors'. Those can't even account for unknown answers. There are, unfortunately, all kinds of motives for this, funding, grants, book sales, irrational hatred, etc. I don't wish to sound like I have a conspiracy theory, rather, doubt about what is really known, vs what is advertised. So now what do we have? Published statistics that may be totally invalid, in either direction. That is used as a comparative for the subject here, and my doubts as to whether the randomness of the sample has been established. Is this reasonable? Is it reasonable for me to believe that we really just don't know?
Top

#32646 - 03/17/07 12:37 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	Quote: Originally posted by Dave Morris: Quote: Originally posted by Geo: Sorry Dave, it isn't done that way. Science practitioners use stats all the time, but not in the way you suggest. You can't make a valid generalization as you suggest that you can, and it isn't just because we're musicians. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it. Later. Many statistical samples are used to extrapolate from a small group to a large group. I understand that. Thats probably what you are most familiar with. And it is what is reported on the news, with opinion polls etc. And I agree that the small sample base has to be suitably random for it to be accurate on a large scale. I am just saying that the math works in reverse. It really does, as long as it is being applied to a large enough group. For example, you take a football stadium filled with people. I am saying that a national random study on child abuse would apply to that group. You seem to be saying that it wouldn't because they are all football fans, or some other homogenous factor. There are tons of examples of national studies being used to forecast local trends, in education, housing, marketing, social science, business. Its done all the time, and is statistically relevent (+ or - an error factor). I have done it frequently. Well, this broke through my resolve. Maybe you should consider stopping that practice. I'm mostly talking about generalizing from the large sample to the small sample. A heterogeneous sample does not tell you about a homogenous sample (unless you're lucky). _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32647 - 03/17/07 12:54 AM Re: The New Planet
Blue Esq Blue Esq Planeteer Registered: 05/16/00 Posts: 4751 Loc: North of France/ East of Engla...	Quote: Originally posted by Geo: A heterogeneous sample does not tell you about a homogenous sample (unless you're lucky). But it would tell you about a small heterogeneous sample, no? _________________________
Top

#32648 - 03/17/07 01:00 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	It would, but I don't believe you have a small heterogeneous sample. Hi, Gene! _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32649 - 03/17/07 01:01 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	Actually, I should say that it might, but only if you had similar parameters. _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32650 - 03/17/07 01:15 AM Re: The New Planet
Blue Esq Blue Esq Planeteer Registered: 05/16/00 Posts: 4751 Loc: North of France/ East of Engla...	Hi Geo! Mmm -- I'm taking "heterogeneous" as meaning "diverse in character or content." Ok? So let's say you had a large heterogeneous sample, made up of, say 2,000,000 individuals. Wouldn't you agree that what holds true for the sample as a whole, should hold true for a smaller sample - say 50,000 individuals? I mean, so long as both samples remained appropriately diverse... Of course, as the sample becomes smaller, it will naturally become less diverse. But, so long as long the sample doesn't become non-diverse on a significant variable, the findings from the larger group should still hold true, no? _________________________
Top

#32651 - 03/17/07 01:20 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	Oh, you are certainly correct, magnificent one, and I'm sure you have experience in these matters, sahib. _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32652 - 03/17/07 01:26 AM Re: The New Planet
rhythmace47 rhythmace47 Planeteer/Artist 208 Planeteer Registered: 05/17/02 Posts: 10437 Loc: Southern Wisconsin	I've accepted the new "user agreement" for the new planet and understand I will be receiving a free 2480 when I send in my old vs1824 + shipping charges to cover the new unit. _________________________ Imagine your lyrics on the horizon written by a skywriter.
Top

#32653 - 03/17/07 01:36 AM Re: The New Planet
GtrGeorge! GtrGeorge! Planeteer Registered: 07/10/01 Posts: 3110 Loc: in the now.	So far its way to early to tell. I believe the pressure to avoid politics,religion etc will cost us all in NOT being able to understand each other, as well as we might have. Because Music is informed by your beliefs. But,I can appreciatte the bandwidth issue..a website isnt free..right? So..hurray...another opportunity to really know each other is closed. I think its a little sad. _________________________
Top

#32654 - 03/17/07 01:37 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	Quote: Originally posted by GtrGeorge!: So far its way to early to tell. I believe the pressure to avoid politics,religion etc will cost us all in NOT being able to understand each other, as well as we might have. Because Music is informed by your beliefs. But,I can appreciatte the bandwidth issue..a website isnt free..right? So..hurray...another opportunity to really know each other is closed. I think its a little sad. What the hell are you talking about? _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32655 - 03/17/07 02:04 AM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by Geo: Quote: Originally posted by Dave Morris: Quote: Originally posted by Geo: Sorry Dave, it isn't done that way. Science practitioners use stats all the time, but not in the way you suggest. You can't make a valid generalization as you suggest that you can, and it isn't just because we're musicians. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it. Later. Many statistical samples are used to extrapolate from a small group to a large group. I understand that. Thats probably what you are most familiar with. And it is what is reported on the news, with opinion polls etc. And I agree that the small sample base has to be suitably random for it to be accurate on a large scale. I am just saying that the math works in reverse. It really does, as long as it is being applied to a large enough group. For example, you take a football stadium filled with people. I am saying that a national random study on child abuse would apply to that group. You seem to be saying that it wouldn't because they are all football fans, or some other homogenous factor. There are tons of examples of national studies being used to forecast local trends, in education, housing, marketing, social science, business. Its done all the time, and is statistically relevent (+ or - an error factor). I have done it frequently. Well, this broke through my resolve. Maybe you should consider stopping that practice. I'm mostly talking about generalizing from the large sample to the small sample. A heterogeneous sample does not tell you about a homogenous sample (unless you're lucky). Or unless the homogenous sample is only homogenous in non critical variables. However, it doesn't look like we can reach agreement here. I can just tell you that the practice is widespread, across many industries and disciplines. Its called local trend forecasting. If you don't believe me,check out some statistical forums on the net. There's lots of them. When you ask me to consider stopping that practice, I trust you don't mean that I should go on a crusade to stop something that is common in Industry and Govt ?
Top

#32656 - 03/17/07 02:11 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	Dave, you are trying to use economical parameters in sociological questions, and that may be why we have a difference. I talked to various science practitioners today about this (I know that sounds weak, but trust me). No one would use the stats as you are saying. However, economics is a different beast, and no doubt you are right within your framework, so I'll allow you the last word. BTW, I've always thought you are quite brilliant. _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32657 - 03/17/07 02:15 AM Re: The New Planet
steverino steverino Planeteer Registered: 01/25/01 Posts: 1768 Loc: SIllyCon Valley CA	Jesus H Christmas fellas.... its OK that we have differing opinions, the difference is when we start attacking each other personally
Top

#32658 - 03/17/07 02:29 AM Re: The New Planet
RGR RGR Planeteer Registered: 03/12/04 Posts: 24317 Loc: UK	there's a new planet? ...beam me up scotty. _________________________ NEW ALBUM OUT HERE https://greenshredman.bandcamp.com/album/man-madame-mystery-3
Top

#32659 - 03/17/07 02:29 AM Re: The New Planet
Dave Morris Dave Morris Planeteer/Artist # 75 Planeteer Registered: 02/15/02 Posts: 19068 Loc: Waterloo, Ontario	Quote: Originally posted by Geo: Dave, you are trying to use economical parameters in sociological questions, and that may be why we have a difference. I talked to various science practitioners today about this (I know that sounds weak, but trust me). No one would use the stats as you are saying. However, economics is a different beast, and no doubt you are right within your framework, so I'll allow you the last word. BTW, I've always thought you are quite brilliant. Thanks for the compliment, and I hope you know that there is no animosity whatsoever on my part, and I don't believe there is any on yours. Its just a discussion based on our respective experience and background. I really do understand the point you are making, and I am not dismissing it at all. I will just say that the methodology I am talking about is not just used for traditional economic stuff, but also for forecasting and planning local education, housing, medical services etc, which could be argued are social services. Nuff said. The horse has been well and truly flogged. Peace
Top

#32660 - 03/17/07 02:34 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	As I said, I'll leave you the last word. Peace. _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32661 - 03/17/07 03:39 AM Re: The New Planet
AnigmaS AnigmaS Artist #271 Planeteer Registered: 04/02/05 Posts: 7266 Loc: New Jersey	Quote: But it would tell you about a small heterogeneous sample, no? Quote: I don't believe you have a small heterogeneous sample. :rolleyes: Gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I believe they prefer to be called: gay "little people", $\:\($ ...and while, I'm certainly no expert, with regards to the validity of projections/comparisons of small heterogeneous samples vs. large heterogeneous samples. I would think, that there would probably be a proportional number of gay midget porno clips, as there are gay full sized people porno clips. imho. $\:\)$ _________________________ Andy It's all about the ~~music~~ ~~egos~~ ~~music~~ ~~money~~ ~~music~~ egos.
Top

#32662 - 03/17/07 03:41 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	Hi Andy! As long as you know what the proportion is I think you'd be golden. _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32663 - 03/17/07 03:48 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	What IS the proportion? _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32664 - 03/17/07 03:57 AM Re: The New Planet
AnigmaS AnigmaS Artist #271 Planeteer Registered: 04/02/05 Posts: 7266 Loc: New Jersey	um, ...eight? $\:D$ _________________________ Andy It's all about the ~~music~~ ~~egos~~ ~~music~~ ~~money~~ ~~music~~ egos.
Top

#32665 - 03/17/07 04:00 AM Re: The New Planet
Geo Geo Planeteer Registered: 11/09/99 Posts: 17522 Loc: within that soul of mine	$\:D$ _________________________ The way in is the way out.
Top

#32666 - 03/17/07 04:32 AM Re: The New Planet
AnigmaS AnigmaS Artist #271 Planeteer Registered: 04/02/05 Posts: 7266 Loc: New Jersey	Good to see ya Geo! _________________________ Andy It's all about the ~~music~~ ~~egos~~ ~~music~~ ~~money~~ ~~music~~ egos.
Top

Page 6 of 8

6

Previous Topic

Previous Topic View All Topics

View All Topics

Index Next Topic

Next Topic

Hop to:

Top Posters

75734

AL

56130

55415

43415

40001

37261

36590

33094

32942

31848

31461

29784

28813

NOK

27470

26868

26543

24317

RGR

24294

fabulousthunderbird

23691

21587

21125

20928

20166

19628

19598

Forum Stats

21370 Members
26 Forums
159897 Topics
1851341 Posts

Max Online: 386 @ 01/18/23 04:57 AM

Newest Members

AncientJuan, jairo santos, drshum, Selfish, VSDeadHead77
21370 Registered Users

Generated in 0.024 seconds in which 0.01 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression disabled.