4 ms·

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?
        AlphaMonkey 17y ago
        I am not saying Zed is wrong, I am merely saying his post is not really that insightful... at least when compared to other essays on Statistics one could read instead. For example, what Cosma Shalizi writes on Statistics is much deeper than what Zed did. Another example: Andrew Gelman has a great blog on Statistics, and he's a true expert. For me an "expert" is someone who has at least 10 years of experience in one field. An expert on Statistics must have carried out extensive data-analysis work, or must have published original papers. Reading books gives one some understanding, but only when one must solve a problem, does one realize that one's knowledge is utterly superficial. Zed is no superman. His area of expertise is not Statistics, it's something else. I am not saying he's stupid. All I am saying is that he has not invested the many years of effort into studying Statistics to earn the title of "expert". By calling him an expert, one insults all the true experts out there, the one who do not write blog posts using juvenile language because, you know, they have better things to do... like spending time with their friends and family...

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?
      - AlphaMonkey 17y ago
        I am not saying Zed is wrong, I am merely saying his post is not really that insightful... at least when compared to other essays on Statistics one could read instead. For example, what Cosma Shalizi writes on Statistics is much deeper than what Zed did. Another example: Andrew Gelman has a great blog on Statistics, and he's a true expert. For me an "expert" is someone who has at least 10 years of experience in one field. An expert on Statistics must have carried out extensive data-analysis work, or must have published original papers. Reading books gives one some understanding, but only when one must solve a problem, does one realize that one's knowledge is utterly superficial. Zed is no superman. His area of expertise is not Statistics, it's something else. I am not saying he's stupid. All I am saying is that he has not invested the many years of effort into studying Statistics to earn the title of "expert". By calling him an expert, one insults all the true experts out there, the one who do not write blog posts using juvenile language because, you know, they have better things to do... like spending time with their friends and family...