![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 36 to 60 of 69. Go back in thread:
Posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:31:25
In reply to Looking at it another way...., posted by CamW on December 3, 2005, at 0:42:38
> It has been my experience, that, on this board, 50% of posters are of below average intelligence.
> ;-PThat's possible, but it wouldn't always be true, even taking the average of only the people who post on this board (not the average of all people everywhere). Consider:
Say there are 100 people who post. On some scale of intelligence that has scores of 0-10...
90 posters have scores of 10.0
10 posters have scores of 9.0
The average intelligence is then 9.9, and 90% of posters on the board have ABOVE-average intelligence.Or say of 100 people posting on some other site...
1 poster has a score of 10.0.
99 posters have scores of 1.0.
The average intelligence is then 1.09, and 99% of posters on that board have BELOW-average intelligence.The statement, "On this board, 50% of posters are of below MEDIAN intelligence," would always be true (+/- 1 poster).
Posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:40:29
In reply to Re: Looking at it another way.... » CamW, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 13:25:36
I forgot to add (to my preceding post about averages) that Larry's statement...
> And 50% of pharmacists graduated in the bottom half of their class.
...is, I think, always true, since it refers to a percentile, not an average.
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:20
In reply to 99% can be below-average » CamW, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:31:25
I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:48
In reply to ...I should've added... » Larry Hoover, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:40:29
heh heh.
math...:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 17:55:32
In reply to Re: 99% can be below-average » pseudoname, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:20
> I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.
yeah. and i don't think the post that started the thread was really intended as an argument either...
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 18:47:51
In reply to Re: 99% can be below-average » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 17:55:32
I don't think so either.. :)
Posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 22:01:27
In reply to Re: 99% can be below-average » pseudoname, posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 17:54:20
> Re: 99% can be below-average » pseudoname
> I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.Gabbix...
I was sorry to see you thought my post was not appropriate.
You're right, Cam's post was tongue-in-cheek. But why do you think I didn't understand that?
This entire thread (that got moved) is playful with math & logic.
My post also plays with numbers, words, and rules. I thought it, too, *might* be pleasurable for people who enjoy logic games and math. At least it could be interesting.
I really am sorry. (I'm not being sarcastic.) I guess I'm still too socially tone-deaf to see why the other 29 logic-laden, playfully-correcting-each-other, back-&-forth posts are acceptable (including my earlier ones, I guess) but my last observation was not.
I'm open to anyone's suggestions, but please be gentle.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
In reply to What did I do wrong? » Gabbix2, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 22:01:27
hey...
i shouldn't really speak for gabbi...
and i'm sure that she will come along and speak for herself but...
i don't want you beating yourself up longer than you have to...> > I think that was the point, or the meaning of the comment.. which was meant tongue-in-cheek.
i really don't think she meant that as a personal criticism. or even meant to say that your post was inappropriate. i actually came along here to sort a little something out myself...
> This entire thread (that got moved) is playful with math & logic.
:-)
yeah
> My post also plays with numbers, words, and rules. I thought it, too, *might* be pleasurable for people who enjoy logic games and math. At least it could be interesting.:-)
> I really am sorry. (I'm not being sarcastic.) I guess I'm still too socially tone-deaf to see why the other 29 logic-laden, playfully-correcting-each-other, back-&-forth posts are acceptable (including my earlier ones, I guess) but my last observation was not.(((((((pseudoname))))))))
its okay. i really don't think she meant anything personal. or anything personal about your post...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:14:18
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong?, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
hmmmm
depends on what you mean by 'smarter'.
they would probably beat me at the GRE anyday of the week...
or the intelligence tests even (but i bet they get to play with 'em more than me - no fair!)
i don't really know the first thing about medication so i guess i trust their judgement on that (because i'm too lazy to study it myself)
but even if i did study it myself they'd still have years on me...
and thus if i disagreed it would hinge on WHY they thought as they did (and their reasons for that) and WHY I thought as I did (and my reasons for that) and so is somebody neglecting an important piece of information or something?its not really about 'smarter than'
but i do take what they have to say with a grain of salt
(or a whole shaker)
;-)
but then if i believed everything they told me...:-(
i guess what i find tricky sometimes...
is people on the meds board...
whose p-doc tells them to do one thing...
and they proceed to do something different without informing their p-doc of that first.because...
there could be a reason why that is not a good idea. a reason that people don't know because they haven't formally learned the relevant information (and thus might miss something relevant).
but i don't know...
i don't know much about medications...
except...
that they don't seem to do a lot for me.
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:18
In reply to ...I should've added... » Larry Hoover, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 16:40:29
> I forgot to add (to my preceding post about averages) that Larry's statement...
>
> > And 50% of pharmacists graduated in the bottom half of their class.
>
> ...is, I think, always true, since it refers to a percentile, not an average.It is always true because 50% is a half, of anything.
The 50th percentile is the median, so that's also another way of saying the same thing.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:49
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong?, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
oh.
and i enjoyed your posts
and your sense of humour.
had to think about the math ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:09
In reply to Re: ...I should've added... » pseudoname, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:18
ew.
and i was contemplating enrolling in stats 101 over summer school to try and get over my phobia of numbers...letters are okay...
but numbers are funny.
is number dyslexia a disorder - anyone?
i'm serious...
i think i have issues reading and transcribing numbers...
3's become 8's
and 6's become 5's etc
even when it's typed
and so i put them into my calculator all wrong
:-(
and get a novel answer everytime i do an equation :-(
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 22:43:20
In reply to What did I do wrong? » Gabbix2, posted by pseudoname on December 3, 2005, at 22:01:27
Oh Absolutely nothing!
Alexandra was absolutely right, I wasn't sure that your post meant that you knew Cam was being tongue in cheek that's all. It's so difficult to read intonation into plain type.
I'm really sorry that I made you feel bad
There was no need for you to apologize at all((Pseudoname))
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 3, 2005, at 22:45:04
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong?, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:06:54
I really appreciated that, you were exactly right and I'm glad you said something, I felt awful that my post came across that way and I too am glad that Pseudoname didn't have to feel bad any longer than necessary
Posted by Phillipa on December 3, 2005, at 23:15:32
In reply to Re: ...or overgeneralizing? » badhaircut, posted by Larry Hoover on December 1, 2005, at 13:08:02
Wow this Thread is going on and on. The answer to me is that you need to know all about the meds you are taking. Ask questions both to the pdoc and pharmacist. And based on your reaction to them. Call pdoc and say what they are. It is ultimately your decision whether to take them or not. And not everyone responds to meds or even responds the same way. We are all individuals. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:26:40
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong? » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:49
> oh.
> and i enjoyed your posts
> and your sense of humour.
> had to think about the math ;-)I like that little trick, alex, posting complements to yourself. Sly girl, you. ;-)
Posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:40:37
In reply to Re: ...I should've added..., posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:09
> ew.
> and i was contemplating enrolling in stats 101 over summer school to try and get over my phobia of numbers...And, perhaps to get a grounding in population study, and the individual. Very useful.
> letters are okay...
>
> but numbers are funny.
>
> is number dyslexia a disorder - anyone?Dyscalculia. Hundreds of thousands of hits on Google. Lots of stuff about how to manage/cope.
> i'm serious...So am I.
> i think i have issues reading and transcribing numbers...
>
> 3's become 8's
> and 6's become 5's etc
> even when it's typed
> and so i put them into my calculator all wrong
> :-(
> and get a novel answer everytime i do an equation :-(Ya, that's what would happen. And that's an example I could have seen, straight from the first website I looked at. "Students with dyscalculia have a very difficult time visualizing numbers and often mentally mix up the numbers, resulting in what appear to be 'stupid mistakes.'"
When you're less busy, we can talk about it, if you'd like.
Lar
Posted by verne on December 4, 2005, at 8:47:21
In reply to Re: ...I should've added... » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:40:37
Could anyone recommend a good introductory logic book? Something between a textbook and Logic for Dummies. Not too many funny mathematical symbols please.
I've been doing logic puzzles since I was a kid - think I inherited it from my mom. (I like Dell logic puzzles - not the computer company) But I get lost in the more complicated puzzles that ask me to figure out how my third cousin is also my aunt, grandmother, and identical twin. (and Sweden wasn't involved)
I dropped out of a logic class in college because it looked too much like math. I wanted a fuzzy philosophy course where I could BS my way through - Logic 101 wasn't the answer.
Verne
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 14:53:35
In reply to Re: ...addendum » linkadge, posted by alexandra_k on December 2, 2005, at 22:10:28
Ooh. I woke up at three in the morning...
With the realisation that I messed this up rather...> 'the present king of france is bald'.
> It is not T, so it must be F.
> but to say it is F is to imply / logically entail that
> 'there is a present king of france and that present king of france is bald' is T.LOL!!! No it isn't. to say that it is F is to imply / logically entail that 'there is a present king of france and that present king of france is bald' is F.
(oops)
So...
> but of course 'there is a present king of france' is F.Yep.
> and thus 'there is a present king of france and that king of france is bald' is F.
Yep.
But there isn't a contradiction anymore...
:-(
Crap.
I'm sure it was neither true nor false because it led to contradiction if we regarded it as false...
Zeugma...
help...
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 14:59:50
In reply to Re: ...I should've added... » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:40:37
> And, perhaps to get a grounding in population study, and the individual. Very useful.
ya.
i was impressed with the text book. about the first sentance was: 'statistics is not math. it is a set of procedures for (i forget)'. that helped :-) but no. there are still numbers in it :-(
> > letters are okay...
> > but numbers are funny.
> > is number dyslexia a disorder - anyone?
> Dyscalculia. Hundreds of thousands of hits on Google. Lots of stuff about how to manage/cope.ooh.
can you get a math transcriber like you can get a reader / writer for arts and soc. sci courses?
> > i'm serious...
> So am I.hmm.
> > i think i have issues reading and transcribing numbers...> > 3's become 8's
> > and 6's become 5's etc
> > even when it's typed
> > and so i put them into my calculator all wrong
> > :-(
> > and get a novel answer everytime i do an equation :-(> Ya, that's what would happen. And that's an example I could have seen, straight from the first website I looked at. "Students with dyscalculia have a very difficult time visualizing numbers and often mentally mix up the numbers, resulting in what appear to be 'stupid mistakes.'"
ah. yes, thats me. full of 'stupid mistakes'. and... i never learned the stuff you needed to learn by rote (so no calculation is involved) - like my times tables. and like adding single numbers together. so that means... i need to calculate everything (in my head or with a calculator). but i do the same thing with them in my head as i do with them trying to key them into the calculator. and reading them too... doing check sums (of peoples marks through the course) was a bit tricky for me... i managed to do it :-) but had to try it 5 or 6 times to get three consistent answers...
(never had a complaint about that i should say - and i'd match it to what the secretary got)
> When you're less busy, we can talk about it, if you'd like.yeah. that'd be cool
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 15:15:17
In reply to Logic, posted by verne on December 4, 2005, at 8:47:21
> Could anyone recommend a good introductory logic book? Something between a textbook and Logic for Dummies. Not too many funny mathematical symbols please.
hmm. this is a text book...
but the first half is in English (no symbols) and deals with puzzles / problems in English. There are LOTS of puzzles / problems and every 5th answer is provided in the back of the book.The second half deals with LPC (lower predicate calculus) and HPC (higher predicate calculus). The symbols might seem a little tricky at first... But there comes a point where it is actually easier to deal with the symbols than it is to try and tackle the problems in English. Also... English is ambiguous (with respect to how one is supposed to translate it into LPC / HPC) while the logical languages are 100% clear and precise.
In first year logic... We worked from chapter 7 on. The logical languages. Before school started I started working through the first half of the book though. Because they said 'no particular mathematical aptitude' was required and I was worried I would bomb. I actually enjoyed the first half. Mostly... The text doesn't make a lot of sense... But you kind of read it half heartedly then have a go at the problems. Only use the text insofar as it helps you understand how to do the problems...
Otherwise...
Maybe you are more interested in critical reasoning? That deals with English rather than logical languages. I should really put in the plug for this bookThe second edition is coming out soon... Though to be fair there are millions of these on the market. I have to say... IMO critical reasoning is more frustrating than logic because there are ambiguities with respect to how you 'read' (translate / interpret) the argument / problem. So... Sometimes there is no right answer. It is more about the REASONS for your answer. Logic has a right answer, though...
> I dropped out of a logic class in college because it looked too much like math.
Yeah, I sympathise...
(If it is any consolation math can actually be REDUCED to logic (I think) so long as set theory / venn diagrams are allowed as a bridge)
So... You can draw problems as sets and sets within sets. I wanted to do that with the all / most / some / one thing... But you can't draw circles in these txt boxes...> I wanted a fuzzy philosophy course where I could BS my way through - Logic 101 wasn't the answer.
Ah. I haven't encountered a 'fuzzy philosophy course where I could BS my way through' yet ;-)
Posted by CamW on December 4, 2005, at 18:02:20
In reply to Re: Looking at it another way.... » CamW, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 13:25:36
Lar - ... and the psychiatrist who graduates at the bottom of his class is still call "Doctor" [shiver].
Naw, I won't be coming to the Babble Reunion; it's too far away and I am using up my Air Miles accompanying my daughter to curling bonspiels. Besides, I think I've burned way to many bridges here, over the years [sigh].
Nice to hear from you Lar - Cam
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2005, at 18:09:27
In reply to Re: What did I do wrong? » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on December 4, 2005, at 0:26:40
> I like that little trick, alex, posting complements to yourself. Sly girl, you. ;-)LOL!
I just got that...
I wasn't sure what you were on about...It was for pseudoname...
Posted by linkadge on December 4, 2005, at 18:49:10
In reply to Re: ...I should've added... » pseudoname, posted by Larry Hoover on December 3, 2005, at 22:17:18
If you had a class of 4.
3 of which achieved 100%
and the 4th achieving 0%,Which two of the four would be in the bottom half of the class ?
Linkadge
Posted by zeugma on December 6, 2005, at 20:03:46
In reply to Re: ...I should've added..., posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2005, at 22:21:09
> ew.
> and i was contemplating enrolling in stats 101 over summer school to try and get over my phobia of numbers...
>
> letters are okay...
>
> but numbers are funny.
>
> is number dyslexia a disorder - anyone?
>
yes. i have number dyslexia. i also have problems with letters- but context helps.
> i'm serious...
>
i can't do a proof, cause i always get noncommutaive operations wrong. as a matter of fact polish logic works best for me- no parentheses, just a simple left-to right iteration thus:Kab= conjunction of a and b
KNab= conjunction of not-a, and b
KNaNb= conjunction of not-a and not-b
Cab= if a, then b
CNab= if not-a, then b
KCNabc= conjunction of if not-a, then b, and c
and so on, it iterates. far more perspicuous to my parentheses-phobic (nut only in logic) and dyslexic mind.what i like about it is that it shows how any places each operator uses.
> i think i have issues reading and transcribing numbers...
>
> 3's become 8's
> and 6's become 5's etc
> even when it's typed
> and so i put them into my calculator all wrong
> :-(
> and get a novel answer everytime i do an equation :-(>>my ambitions to be a scientist were scotched in boyhood by far too many novel answers.
-z
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.