4 ms·

Zed Shaw should stick to his area of expertise. His angry, opinionated rants on topics he clearly lacks deep knowledge of are perfect examples of the pseudo-int

Zed Shaw should stick to his area of expertise. His angry, opinionated rants on topics he clearly lacks deep knowledge of are perfect examples of the pseudo-intellectual junk that litters HN from time to time.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
thanks for that argumentated non opinionated answer !
- AlphaMonkey 17y ago
  At least I don't write like a slightly retarded teenager, and I don't pretend to be an expert on Statistics. Thanks for the "kudos" anyways.
  - Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
    Sorry for the sarcastic answer, never a good thing. My point was, despite Zed's tone , that i found irritating, he does actually provide content in this article, that a newbie like me can use and put at profit (wich i did when the article first came out). On the other hand, your post sounds angry, gives no insight as to why / how he lacks knowledge (which would have been interresting) and use condescending expressions like "pseudo intellectual garbage"
    - mariorz 17y ago
      > he does actually provide content in this article, that a newbie like me can use and put at profit (wich i did when the article first came out). what could you possibly use from this article? if you're really interested in learning stats concepts and tools you can be better served by blogs with actual content. here's a good one: http://incanter-blog.org/ http://incanter-blog.org/
      - Pistos2 17y ago
        Vb > Va does not imply that Va == 0. We cannot conclude that A has no value just because B has more value than A.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
    - AlphaMonkey 17y ago
      Look, I know it's none of my business, but if you're a newbie and you want to learn some Statistics, wouldn't you be better off checking the MIT OCW pages, or the countless lecture notes in PDF format that can be found on the web? This is an honest question. Contrary to what many short-sighted "pure" mathematicians think, Statistics is hard. You can't explain statistics in a bunch of blog posts, not even if you are a true expert. You can't condense all that knowledge in a blog post, one must read the books, though painful that may seem.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        > You can't condense all that knowledge in a blog post, one must read the books, though painful that may seem. No, that's a silly approach. If your, say, launching a web app advice like this [sic] is useful. You dont need or want a deep understanding, you just need the pointers to analyse stuff right. (as it stands I never mind Zed's tone and when I first read this article it provided some useful info to me in a simple format :) Also r.e. your first post - from what I recall Zed can be considered some sort of an expert on this stuff.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        AlphaMonkey 17y ago
        Ruby ninja, guitar-player extraordinaire, self-taught Statistics expert... wow!!! Zed's propaganda machine rivals that of Kim Yong-il. Get this: you need deep understanding of the fundamentals, otherwise you're not doing Statistics, you're doing Voodoo Magic. If you learned some Statistics from Zed's post, then you must know even less than he does. But then, one of the many symptoms of ignorance is the false belief that one knows. Do you even realize how many years one needs to become an expert on any field, especially a tough field like Statistics?
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Look, I dont want to get into a protracted argument... but. It seems your definition of "expert" is a lot higher than mine; which is fine. Lets use a different word: experienced. However with that said what Zed wrote in that post stood up to extra research by myself and I actually understood what he had to say. If you wish to claim it is wrong and he has no clue, fine; but can you please - for our benefit - explain why and specifically where he is wrong?
- mariorz 17y ago
  the comment requires no further argumentation. what could anyone take away from this article? "most programmers are idiots, zed shaw is fucking awesome" and "SD is important yo!". this isn't HN material.
ellyagg 17y ago
Zed, is that you?
- AlphaMonkey 17y ago
  OK, I must admit that one made me laugh. I assume it's a rhetorical question, so I won't even answer...
- zedshaw 17y ago
  Nope, that's not me. AlphaMonkey is definitely not me.
zedshaw 17y ago
Alright, let's see you do better. I see in the comments you've come around to realizing that what statistics needs is more explanations that work for regular folks who have to apply them. Why not write your own blog post that's better than mine? Also, just FYI: I studied statistics in business school both BS and MS, so most of my background is in applied simplified stats. This includes several graduate courses in stats in the sociology department. In addition I have extensive experience since about 2000 (so 10 years) applying statistics to problems using the R language. Now, when you write this blog post, I'll expect to see your full Ph.D. level CV laying out all of your experience, publications, and applications of statistics just to be fair.
- AlphaMonkey 17y ago
  Fair enough. Please do note: 1) I find your writing style juvenile and distasteful. Maybe some of you yanks actually like that kind of writing. Personally, such writing makes the reading intolerable, even if the content is interesting. 2) Still regarding 1): if you already have the fame, why do you keep writing like a disgruntled teenager desperate for attention? 3) Interestingly, I don't disagree with the points you made in the article, I just don't think that insulting your audience is the best way to make your point. Maybe some people like it. To me, it just sounds vulgar. 4) Statistics taught in undergrad and business school is pseudo-Statistics. I don't mean to be pedantic, but the truth is that only graduate-level, rigorous, Mathematical Statistics counts as "true Statistics". One does not need to know the entire field (that takes at least one lifetime), but one needs to know the fundamentals very well in order to apply them. 5) Mere mortals can only be experts in one or two things. You have programming and guitar. Sorry, but you still are no Statistics expert on my book. 10 years of R is impressive and valuable, but if you don't know the foundations, you're a technician, not a statistician. 6) My field is not Statistics. I am no expert in Statistics, and I am not qualified to write about it. I can write a blog post on Algebraic Geometry, but you would not understand it, so there's no point. 7) Unlike you, I have no interest in revealing my true identity. Unfortunately, there are evil people in this world, and whatever I would write on HN under my real name could be used against me later on. If you're not in that position and can write what the fuck you want on your blog, then I must say that I envy your freedom. To recap: writing like a teenager does alienate some readers, and calling a non-expert an expert is something to be avoided.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago

thanks for that argumentated non opinionated answer !

AlphaMonkey 17y ago
At least I don't write like a slightly retarded teenager, and I don't pretend to be an expert on Statistics. Thanks for the "kudos" anyways.
- Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  Sorry for the sarcastic answer, never a good thing. My point was, despite Zed's tone , that i found irritating, he does actually provide content in this article, that a newbie like me can use and put at profit (wich i did when the article first came out). On the other hand, your post sounds angry, gives no insight as to why / how he lacks knowledge (which would have been interresting) and use condescending expressions like "pseudo intellectual garbage"
  - mariorz 17y ago
    > he does actually provide content in this article, that a newbie like me can use and put at profit (wich i did when the article first came out). what could you possibly use from this article? if you're really interested in learning stats concepts and tools you can be better served by blogs with actual content. here's a good one: http://incanter-blog.org/ http://incanter-blog.org/
    - Pistos2 17y ago
      Vb > Va does not imply that Va == 0. We cannot conclude that A has no value just because B has more value than A.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
  - AlphaMonkey 17y ago
    Look, I know it's none of my business, but if you're a newbie and you want to learn some Statistics, wouldn't you be better off checking the MIT OCW pages, or the countless lecture notes in PDF format that can be found on the web? This is an honest question. Contrary to what many short-sighted "pure" mathematicians think, Statistics is hard. You can't explain statistics in a bunch of blog posts, not even if you are a true expert. You can't condense all that knowledge in a blog post, one must read the books, though painful that may seem.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > You can't condense all that knowledge in a blog post, one must read the books, though painful that may seem. No, that's a silly approach. If your, say, launching a web app advice like this [sic] is useful. You dont need or want a deep understanding, you just need the pointers to analyse stuff right. (as it stands I never mind Zed's tone and when I first read this article it provided some useful info to me in a simple format :) Also r.e. your first post - from what I recall Zed can be considered some sort of an expert on this stuff.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - AlphaMonkey 17y ago
        Ruby ninja, guitar-player extraordinaire, self-taught Statistics expert... wow!!! Zed's propaganda machine rivals that of Kim Yong-il. Get this: you need deep understanding of the fundamentals, otherwise you're not doing Statistics, you're doing Voodoo Magic. If you learned some Statistics from Zed's post, then you must know even less than he does. But then, one of the many symptoms of ignorance is the false belief that one knows. Do you even realize how many years one needs to become an expert on any field, especially a tough field like Statistics?
        ErrantX 17y ago
        Look, I dont want to get into a protracted argument... but. It seems your definition of "expert" is a lot higher than mine; which is fine. Lets use a different word: experienced. However with that said what Zed wrote in that post stood up to extra research by myself and I actually understood what he had to say. If you wish to claim it is wrong and he has no clue, fine; but can you please - for our benefit - explain why and specifically where he is wrong?
mariorz 17y ago
the comment requires no further argumentation. what could anyone take away from this article? "most programmers are idiots, zed shaw is fucking awesome" and "SD is important yo!". this isn't HN material.

ellyagg 17y ago

Zed, is that you?

AlphaMonkey 17y ago
OK, I must admit that one made me laugh. I assume it's a rhetorical question, so I won't even answer...
zedshaw 17y ago
Nope, that's not me. AlphaMonkey is definitely not me.

zedshaw 17y ago

Alright, let's see you do better. I see in the comments you've come around to realizing that what statistics needs is more explanations that work for regular folks who have to apply them. Why not write your own blog post that's better than mine? Also, just FYI: I studied statistics in business school both BS and MS, so most of my background is in applied simplified stats. This includes several graduate courses in stats in the sociology department. In addition I have extensive experience since about 2000 (so 10 years) applying statistics to problems using the R language. Now, when you write this blog post, I'll expect to see your full Ph.D. level CV laying out all of your experience, publications, and applications of statistics just to be fair.

AlphaMonkey 17y ago
Fair enough. Please do note: 1) I find your writing style juvenile and distasteful. Maybe some of you yanks actually like that kind of writing. Personally, such writing makes the reading intolerable, even if the content is interesting. 2) Still regarding 1): if you already have the fame, why do you keep writing like a disgruntled teenager desperate for attention? 3) Interestingly, I don't disagree with the points you made in the article, I just don't think that insulting your audience is the best way to make your point. Maybe some people like it. To me, it just sounds vulgar. 4) Statistics taught in undergrad and business school is pseudo-Statistics. I don't mean to be pedantic, but the truth is that only graduate-level, rigorous, Mathematical Statistics counts as "true Statistics". One does not need to know the entire field (that takes at least one lifetime), but one needs to know the fundamentals very well in order to apply them. 5) Mere mortals can only be experts in one or two things. You have programming and guitar. Sorry, but you still are no Statistics expert on my book. 10 years of R is impressive and valuable, but if you don't know the foundations, you're a technician, not a statistician. 6) My field is not Statistics. I am no expert in Statistics, and I am not qualified to write about it. I can write a blog post on Algebraic Geometry, but you would not understand it, so there's no point. 7) Unlike you, I have no interest in revealing my true identity. Unfortunately, there are evil people in this world, and whatever I would write on HN under my real name could be used against me later on. If you're not in that position and can write what the fuck you want on your blog, then I must say that I envy your freedom. To recap: writing like a teenager does alienate some readers, and calling a non-expert an expert is something to be avoided.