How many watmm trolls are paid by their governments to be here?

  On 3/1/2014 at 8:15 AM, azatoth said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

 

I am sorry, if you don't agree with Eugene's official truth then you are stupid and a conspiritard. He is the truth and shines the light of reason on WATMM, peace be upon him.

 

Blessed be, Eugene, the lamb of knowledge.

(I agree with GoDel, but, yeh, fuck you Eugene)

  On 3/1/2014 at 4:08 AM, chenGOD said:

Yes anova is about many things, I exaggerated in my rushed post on the bus. But to say that sociologists don't do post-hoc is blatantly untrue.

i don't really know what definition of post hoc you have in mind, and i don't remember it mentioned in the last 6 years of my studies, but technically we do anova all the time, regressions are basically anova. the difference between say historians and sociologists is that historian are concerned with how things happened, sociologists try to predict how things will happen, that's the main point.

if you mean something like this (https://www.statstodo.com/Posthoc_Exp.php) then it seems something much more narrower than what you probably had in mind.

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

you can believe what you want of course, but what behavior do you have in mind exactly ?

  On 3/1/2014 at 8:15 AM, azatoth said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 5:46 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

ok, so what would you say to someone that believes this sort of behaviour should be made illegal? do you think they're entitled to their opinion in that case? keep in mind not everyone that disagrees with you is ignorant or off the deep end by default

 

I am sorry, if you don't agree with Eugene's official truth then you are stupid and a conspiritard. He is the truth and shines the light of reason on WATMM, peace be upon him.

 

unlike conspiratards i never pretended to know any truths, i just have a problem with what they call truth and how they get to it.

  On 3/1/2014 at 11:47 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 3/1/2014 at 4:08 AM, chenGOD said:

Yes anova is about many things, I exaggerated in my rushed post on the bus. But to say that sociologists don't do post-hoc is blatantly untrue.

i don't really know what definition of post hoc you have in mind, and i don't remember it mentioned in the last 6 years of my studies, but technically we do anova all the time, regressions are basically anova. the difference between say historians and sociologists is that historian are concerned with how things happened, sociologists try to predict how things will happen, that's the main point.

 

if you mean something like this (https://www.statstodo.com/Posthoc_Exp.php) then it seems something much more narrower than what you probably had in mind.

 

No I'm thinking more along the lines of this (please note the sources - these are reputable schools)

http://pages.uoregon.edu/stevensj/posthoc.pdf

http://www.psych.uncc.edu/cdfernal/Post%20hoc%20Tests%20Instructions%204%2010%2012.pdf (yes, psych, but still using anova)

http://www.shortell.org/book/chap14.html

http://library.brown.edu/gateway/ssds/intermediatespss2.pdf (note page 5 particularly)

ok, those describe a very specific sub-test of anova, i'm pretty sure this is not what you meant originally when you said "I suppose you will only be satisfied post-hoc.", pretty sure you had something much more general in mind. (also i'm pretty sure you don't understand what this post hoc test even means in your links, lol)

i'v seen this before guice, he's on a molly

Good job not reading the links...they are not only anova. Anyways the point is that sociologists do use post-hoc analysis in a substantial manner.

Not only are you a terrible debater, you're godawful at sociology.

  On 3/1/2014 at 2:34 AM, delet... said:

perhaps you were prescribing this as a treatment

 

Definitely a prescription ;)

  On 3/1/2014 at 6:20 PM, chenGOD said:

Good job not reading the links...they are not only anova. Anyways the point is that sociologists do use post-hoc analysis in a substantial manner.

Not only are you a terrible debater, you're godawful at sociology.

lol, all of the links including mine say exactly the same thing about what post hoc analysis is with anova, in simple words it's a refinement of a crude anova test that can't show what groups (means) exactly are significantly different from another but only shows that there's significant difference among some groups.

you don't understand those things and think they're talking about something different at all. the sociologists can use it when needed obviously (though usually it's the psychologists who do) but this is not some paradigmatic thing you make it out to be, it's just a small statistical tool.

Yes with anova. Which if course is not the only type of statistical analysis.

Your words: sociologists don't do post-hoc. They most clearly do. Don't feel bad that you wasted 5 years getting an MA in sociology when you could have just taken sociology 100 and a 2 day course in SPSS and understood the same amount as you do now.

my words refered to the literal and larger meaning of the term "post hoc" and i'm sure you meant it in the exact same sense initially, ie getting to conclusions only after things happened and have been analyzed as a final goal. that's clearly not what sociology tries to do in most cases (though you might call someone like foucault a sociologist in some sense), it does rely on data collected in the past but its main goal is to predict stuff for the future. like what conditions are required for abuse of nsa capabilities to happen or what (organizational) theory can explain whether it'll happen or not etc.

now you quite obviously tried to google "sociology and post-hoc" in a desperate attempt to milk something that will contradict my claim, without realizing its context and not understanding what you actually googled out. that's a pretty laughable attempt.

GO

AWAY

wow, that actually sounded threatening, i'll seriously reconsider participating in this thread, thanks for the warning man.

What I actually googled was post-hoc statistical analysis sociology because I needed some sources as I'm not at home. Post-hoc analysis refers to looking for patterns not specified a priori. Trust, I understand its context just fine.

That's a very narrow definition of sociology, and I believe you would find many sociologists who would argue that sociology's main goal is not predictive at all. Rather it looks for patterns to explain why certain behavior has occurred in a given society.

Once again you fail at debating and sociology. Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are?

The randoms are hired (I won't mention by whom). Unfortunately they turned out to be no match for your complicated attack vectors.

  On 3/1/2014 at 9:00 PM, eugene said:

wow, that actually sounded threatening, i'll seriously reconsider participating in this thread, thanks for the warning man.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

is it only me that finds it hilarious and pathetic at the same time that people who no one even ever heard about come to the thread and portray themselves like they've been bros with half of the forum for decades and feel like they can throw jabs at me and everyone will laugh along with them? is this like a way to win some watmm rep or something ?

 

lol. ur so cool and smart Eugene, forgot I was a nobody in the eyes of decade-old watmm elite and should never express opinion or try to be funny unless acknowledged. I was under the assumption I could laugh at you and gain +1's with the boys. My bad.

Reality checks, man.

the first time i heard of eugene was when compson had his mental breakdown

  On 3/1/2014 at 9:05 PM, chenGOD said:

What I actually googled was post-hoc statistical analysis sociology because I needed some sources as I'm not at home. Post-hoc analysis refers to looking for patterns not specified a priori. Trust, I understand its context just fine.

 

That's a very narrow definition of sociology, and I believe you would find many sociologists who would argue that sociology's main goal is not predictive at all. Rather it looks for patterns to explain why certain behavior has occurred in a given society.

Once again you fail at debating and sociology. Maybe you're just not as smart as you think you are?

and yet you gave examples of a simple statistical tool that simply has a "post-hoc" in its name as a proof that sociology at large deals with post hoc analysis.

the definition of the goal of sociology that i gave is a very prominent and accepted one, pretty much any sociological theory will aspire to predict something, not just describe something that had already happened. just take any popular sociological big theories and see for yourself: marxism is the most obvious example, bureaucratization and rationalization by weber, functionalism by drukheim and his followers and countless others try to explain how societies (or particular facets of them) work and will work and change in the future.

you're making a fool of yourself again by getting into stuff you don't understand in order to score some points against me, i think you better drop this at this stage for your sake.

to stop this we could start an open poll to see what ppl think about eugene, with these offered statements:

1. he probably has a narcissistic personality disorder (that's usually part of psychopathic profiles) so he can't stand defeat no matter how small it is as is this discussion (he has to be right! and if he's not then he likes to ridicule, twist arguments or lie)

2. he see this simply as a game of domination that's part of the person's beliefs or delusions (I'm a superior being and i'm gonna prove it to you syndrome [no, i don't mean primary as in jewish beliefs manner])

3. this discussion or similar kind of discussions on watmm he uses as a training for more serious discussions in private life

4. personal involvement in the matter

5. he's right and others are stubborn bigots and morons, if they could only see it

6. he's right .

7. 1+2+3+4

8. 1+2+3

9. 1+2

10. NONONONONONO

let's have a poll about what we are arguing about

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:32 PM, IOS said:

10. NONONONONONO

lol

how could i miss that?!

I think we should have a thread where we try to figure out when this forum lost its sense of humor. There's an awful lot of seriousness and anger on here these days.

Maybe WATMM is in fact going through puberty. The website is 15 years old or so, isn't it?

  On 3/1/2014 at 10:32 PM, IOS said:

10. NONONONONONO

lol

^^ Thanks to you :)