4 ms·

I did not ask you to explain anything. I said your explanation is not representative of what is happening. And the clear evidence is the paper in question. R

I did not ask you to explain anything. I said your explanation is not representative of what is happening. And the clear evidence is the paper in question. Read the "retraction". They do not suggest the bimodal distribution is incorrect, but that they should not have suggested it was inherent and unchangable, when the evidence does not support that.

hyperpape 11y ago
His test is not a very good predictor: most of those who appear to use a model in the pre-course test pass the end-of-course exam but so do many of those who do not. And it doesn’t predict the level of performance, as we discovered when we tried some deeper statistical analysis (Bornat et al., 2008). But the phenomenon is real and the prediction it makes is reproducible, as Dehnadi showed in a meta-analysis in his thesis (Dehnadi, 2009). That meta-analysis is summarised in (Dehnadi et al., 2009). But that’s not all. It’s not enough to summarise the scientific result, because I wrote and web-circulated “The camel has two humps” in 2006. That document was very misleading and, because web documents persist, it continues to mislead to this day. I need to make an explicit retraction of much of what it claimed. Dehnadi didn’t discover a programming aptitude test. He didn’t find a way of dividing programming sheep from non-programming goats. We hadn’t shown that nature trumps nurture. He had, however, found a predictive phenomenon, though he had no explanation of it. How do you read these paragraphs, or what part of the retraction supports the "two humps" claim and how do you understand that claim?
- MustardTiger 11y ago
  I don't know how I could make it any clearer than what you quoted. What do you think "But the phenomenon is real and the prediction it makes is reproducible, as Dehnadi showed in a meta-analysis in his thesis" means? Or "We hadn’t shown that nature trumps nurture. He had, however, found a predictive phenomenon, though he had no explanation of it."?

hyperpape 11y ago

His test is not a very good predictor: most of those who appear to use a model in the pre-course test pass the end-of-course exam but so do many of those who do not. And it doesn’t predict the level of performance, as we discovered when we tried some deeper statistical analysis (Bornat et al., 2008). But the phenomenon is real and the prediction it makes is reproducible, as Dehnadi showed in a meta-analysis in his thesis (Dehnadi, 2009). That meta-analysis is summarised in (Dehnadi et al., 2009). But that’s not all. It’s not enough to summarise the scientific result, because I wrote and web-circulated “The camel has two humps” in 2006. That document was very misleading and, because web documents persist, it continues to mislead to this day. I need to make an explicit retraction of much of what it claimed. Dehnadi didn’t discover a programming aptitude test. He didn’t find a way of dividing programming sheep from non-programming goats. We hadn’t shown that nature trumps nurture. He had, however, found a predictive phenomenon, though he had no explanation of it. How do you read these paragraphs, or what part of the retraction supports the "two humps" claim and how do you understand that claim?

MustardTiger 11y ago
I don't know how I could make it any clearer than what you quoted. What do you think "But the phenomenon is real and the prediction it makes is reproducible, as Dehnadi showed in a meta-analysis in his thesis" means? Or "We hadn’t shown that nature trumps nurture. He had, however, found a predictive phenomenon, though he had no explanation of it."?