Home > Archive > Compression > March 2007 > Does this stream deviate from normality?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Does this stream deviate from normality?
|
|
| Phil Carmody 2007-02-28, 7:56 am |
| The following is a physical constant expressed in binary:
1010000000101111101001001000001100011100
0000001101111011011100000110010101000011
0111111010101100011111110100000001001010
1101001100011100111101100101110010101110
1100111000011001101101001111011100100001
1011100110111110011011111010100101011010
000110101000011
1001010010011001000100000101100011010010
1111100011110011011111011000100111111000
0010010110010011101001111100111101100111
0111001101000111110010100010101000100000
1000101110101101010000000101100010000011
0010010111101110100000100011100010001100
101100001001111
1111001011000000001001100111110010100110
0000101010110001111010011101111000000000
0111000110100111101111010100110001110001
0000111110000110100100010011011100111000
0000101101011011100011100011011100110001
0011101110011000111000011101100111101000
001110010011001
1000100000110011101000100101001111010000
1100010010100010110101000111000111100000
0001000101011110011011001000101010110010
0100011100110110100100001000001111010010
1001000000001101001101010011001010101100
0100111001101101010011110000111111101001
011010001111100
0010000011000100011011000111111101001000
0101100001000010101111101000111011111011
0101101101111000001001010001110101000100
1001100110001110110010010101000111110000
0110000000010011010010010100110101001011
0010111101001011001010011011110100101000
101101011110000
0010001111010010101100100000100110011111
1000010001110001001001101100111001101110
000000...
It has been proposed by some of uncertain reputation that this
constant is not normal (does not have equi-distributed digits),
and I thought that this was a good place to ask for contributions
in that regard.
There are certainly a few 'visual' anomolies - runs of 0s seem
to be more common/longer than runs of 1s, but are these statistically
significant? I'm not a stats narg, and don't know a chisquared from
a chianti. (Not a wine narg either, and hate fava beans.)
TIA,
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
| |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com 2007-02-28, 6:56 pm |
| define "normality"
| |
| Pete Fraser 2007-02-28, 6:56 pm |
| <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172673703.365207.186670@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> define "normality"
He just did (parenthetically).
| |
| Phil Carmody 2007-02-28, 6:56 pm |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com writes:
> define "normality"
There was a very brief definition in the bit that you snipped.
Read, think, click reply, edit, send <- Good
Ignore, click reply, gibber, send <- Bad. That's what you're doing.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
| |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com 2007-02-28, 6:56 pm |
| On Feb 28, 9:41 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> industrial_...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> There was a very brief definition in the bit that you snipped.
>
> Read, think, click reply, edit, send <- Good
> Ignore, click reply, gibber, send <- Bad. That's what you're doing.
>
> Phil
> --
> "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
> so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
> /In God We Trust, Inc./.
That wasn't a definition, moron that was just a bunch of 0's and 1's
followed by gibberish.
| |
| Mark Adler 2007-02-28, 6:56 pm |
| On Feb 28, 2:03 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> The following is a physical constant expressed in binary:
A 400-digit physical constant?! The most accurate physical constant
humans have ever measured is around 12 or 13 digits. (Last time I
looked, it was the free electron g-factor.) This must be a
mathematical constant.
> It has been proposed by some of uncertain reputation that this
> constant is not normal (does not have equi-distributed digits),
It has about the right proportion of zeros and ones (0.52 vs. 0.48).
At the next order, the probability of a 0 or 1 following a 0 is 0.53
vs. 0.47. The probability of a 0 or 1 following a 1 is 0.51 vs.
0.49. One standard deviation here is approximately the square root of
the number of 1's or 0's, which is about 0.04, so the variations are
all well within norms at first order as well. Since there is a slight
bias within these norms for a 0 to follow a 0, and a slight bias for
more 0's, you would expect some longer runs of 0's.
I haven't tried to calculate the expected distribution of runs of 0's
or 1's.
Mark
| |
| Phil Carmody 2007-02-28, 6:56 pm |
| "Mark Adler" <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On Feb 28, 2:03 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> A 400-digit physical constant?! The most accurate physical constant
> humans have ever measured is around 12 or 13 digits. (Last time I
> looked, it was the free electron g-factor.) This must be a
> mathematical constant.
I didn't want to leak too much information about what it was, lest
that bias cause people to bias their interpretation of test results
that they may perform. I wasn't 'blinded' when I saw the number,
and think that I may be too keen to see a result that isn't there.
It's the output of an exact mathematical model of something
physical. Calculating more digits is a hard job, and will only be
done if there's enough evidence in what's already known to suggest
that it would be worth the effort.
>
> It has about the right proportion of zeros and ones (0.52 vs. 0.48).
> At the next order, the probability of a 0 or 1 following a 0 is 0.53
> vs. 0.47. The probability of a 0 or 1 following a 1 is 0.51 vs.
> 0.49. One standard deviation here is approximately the square root of
> the number of 1's or 0's, which is about 0.04, so the variations are
> all well within norms at first order as well. Since there is a slight
> bias within these norms for a 0 to follow a 0, and a slight bias for
> more 0's, you would expect some longer runs of 0's.
For normality, any bias would be the death-knell.
The tests results that I have access to are a (0th order) entropy
calculation, and a Chi^2, using both gliding buckets (bits 0-2, bits
1-3, bits 2-4, ...) and blocked buckets (bits 0-2, bits 3-5, ...).
One of these test results looked to the fallable human eye noticably
different from the result got by throwing a conjectured normal number
at it, thus possibly implying the constant is non-normal, but the
other test showed it to be indestinguishable from that other number,
thus possibly normal.
> I haven't tried to calculate the expected distribution of runs of 0's
> or 1's.
They don't deviate much outside a standard deviation, except for the
runs of 6 or 7 0s. IIRC 11 out of 12 runs of 6 0s continue with a 7th.
However, that sample size is so small, that perhaps that's just a
1 in a thousand thing that would happen once in any set of 1000 bits.
I will find out how expensive another 500 bits would be...
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
| |
|
| Phil Carmody ha scritto:
> "Mark Adler" <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>
>
> I didn't want to leak too much information about what it was, lest
> that bias cause people to bias their interpretation of test results
> that they may perform. I wasn't 'blinded' when I saw the number,
> and think that I may be too keen to see a result that isn't there.
>
> It's the output of an exact mathematical model of something
> physical. Calculating more digits is a hard job, and will only be
> done if there's enough evidence in what's already known to suggest
> that it would be worth the effort.
>
>
You mean, that "thing" is a number that describes *what* physical ?
Math constants are this *huge* ?
Moreover, how come you didn't provide a format for the number, is it
floating point ? IEEE something ?
OT:
I didn't do too much physics, but I was interested in knowing if there's
any research on the topic: "how reality is quantized - if it is".
If reality is indeed quantized, there would be no need for high
precision math... maybe just large integers, and maybe not so large either.
Regarding time for instance, reasoning by paradoxes, if there would be
infinite instants, nothing could ever move in space.
Given instead that things can move in space, there must be a minimum
positional increment step in order for a body to gain a new position
from s0 to s1 in time t0 to t1.
If you know of any good reading about the matter, online, please let me
know.
Best,
E.
| |
| Mark Adler 2007-03-01, 3:56 am |
| On Feb 28, 3:36 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> For normality, any bias would be the death-knell.
Um, no. A small "bias" *is* normal for a random 1361 bit number. For
example, if it had almost exactly 50% zeros, that would be an unusual
case. (It could only be "almost exactly", since there are an odd
number of bits.) The average absolute distance from 0.5 is 0.01, so
the common cases will be 0.51/0.49 or 0.49/0.51, *not* 0.50/0.50.
I just looked at runs of zeros, and this sequence is completely within
family of random sequences of 1361 bits. I can find nothing apparent
to distinguish it statistically from ensembles of random 1361 bit
sequences.
Mark
| |
| Phil Carmody 2007-03-01, 3:56 am |
| "Mark Adler" <madler@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> On Feb 28, 3:36 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Um, no. A small "bias" *is* normal for a random 1361 bit number.
You're confusing ``"bias"'' with ``bias''. The phenomenon and the
noumenon are alas two different things.
> For
> example, if it had almost exactly 50% zeros, that would be an unusual
> case. (It could only be "almost exactly", since there are an odd
> number of bits.) The average absolute distance from 0.5 is 0.01, so
> the common cases will be 0.51/0.49 or 0.49/0.51, *not* 0.50/0.50.
Yup. Any bridge player knows that 4 cards are most likely to be split 3-1.
> I just looked at runs of zeros, and this sequence is completely within
> family of random sequences of 1361 bits. I can find nothing apparent
> to distinguish it statistically from ensembles of random 1361 bit
> sequences.
Thank you very much for such a clear statement, I shall pass that
back to the person who passed the sequence on to me.
To satisfy the curious, the constant is the Feigenbaum delta, -2.50... .
The results I had were:
Chi^2 for many bucket sizes implied possible bias.
Entropy implied it's just like any other number (in particular sqrt(2))
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
| |
|
|
| guenther vonKnakspott 2007-03-01, 7:55 am |
| On Feb 28, 8:41 pm, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 9:41 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> That wasn't a definition, moron that was just a bunch of 0's and 1's
> followed by gibberish.
What a blithering idiot! It is all there for anyone with eyes in their
sockets to see! Fraser's reply to your asinine retort contains a nice
clue for the feebly minded like yourself in form of the word
"(parenthetically)". But your stupidity evidently surpasses anything
seen until now. The following is the relevant part of Carmody's
article:
"...constant is not normal (does not have equi-distributed digits)"
What do you think is the function of those funny words in parentheses
(nobody expects an imbecile like yourself to understand their
meaning)?. Why don't you do yourself a favor and inflict some serious
injuries to your brain? It might actually improve your skills and
intelligence.
And please, do not paraphrase me you miserable wretch, have you got no
dignity at all?
| |
| Phil Carmody 2007-03-01, 7:55 am |
| "guenther vonKnakspott" <apacur@gmail.com> writes:
> seen until now. The following is the relevant part of Carmody's
Just for reference, my preference is to be known by my first name
or nickname. 'Carmody's just so stuffy and formal.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
| |
| George Johnson 2007-03-01, 6:56 pm |
| <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172688099.335782.100130@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| On Feb 28, 9:41 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
| wrote:
| > industrial_...@hotmail.com writes:
| > > define "normality"
| >
| > There was a very brief definition in the bit that you snipped.
| >
| > Read, think, click reply, edit, send <- Good
| > Ignore, click reply, gibber, send <- Bad. That's what you're doing.
| >
| > Phil
| > --
| > "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
| > so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
| > /In God We Trust, Inc./.
|
| That wasn't a definition, moron that was just a bunch of 0's and 1's
| followed by gibberish.
And this response on your part pretty much explains why nobody takes
you seriously.
You haven't embraced the mathematical education you definitely need to
comprehend half of what we casually discuss here (Chi-Squares are a test for
random distribution thusly being moderately important tests for efficiency
in data-compression routine results, and you'd already know that if you even
bothered to use GOOGLE to look up the words you consider "gibberish").
Furthermore, you lack DIPLOMACY.
I have stated that earlier in another post.
You are so enslaved by your emotions that you cannot practice even the
slightest level of manners to even get a polite conversation going. Here is
a simple technique for you to try. Firstly, write the response you want and
blurt out every emotionally-keyed insulting  word you desire, then
start all over again a few lines below your "improperly emotional response",
but reword it to be less direct or less insulting. Once you vomit out your
passions, you can more DIPLOMATICALLY reword your posts to make them less
repelling to the casual reader.
A great hobby of British culture revolves around how to DIPLOMATICALLY
tell another person that they feel the other chap's mother not only fellates
horses while writhing in cow pies, but also is the illegitimate result of a
Welshman boffing a ewe. You see, the wording is not "directly insulting" so
the immediate emotional response is to ponder how badly one has been
insulted, but how badly. Or in "more direct" terms, you are a gushing
honkbag of lackwit blurtings from your constantly fragile emotional
squirtings. Until you realize that and learn some tact in your
conversations I and others will mock you privately and openly (although that
tends to make others look less dignified, I personally care little for
clueless obnoxious dumbasses which come into a polite club and begin to shit
in the punchbowl like a rancid r ing repulsive crazy-ass bag-lady). The
common Internet terms which describe you accurately at this point is
"Bloviating Boring Brainless Bastard", "Lobotomized Crack-Head Attention
Whore", and the more polite term of "Troll with a Permanently
Sand-Encrusted-Vagina".
When you learn to disagree with people politely and state it as such in
a manner befitting a gentleman I will cease whacking you aside the head with
the "clue stick". I am not being elitist, you are simply posted nothing
that would exceed the barest measure of any other worthless dumbass that
decided to wander in here and quack out your painfully obvious ignorance
daily. At the moment, I can honestly state that I have met (in my
kindergarten years) children whom have better manners and more a worthwhile
mathematical educational level for the discussions here than what you spout
out in this newsgroup.
| |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com 2007-03-01, 9:55 pm |
| On Mar 1, 3:52 am, "guenther vonKnakspott" <apa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:41 pm, industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote:
lol... this ain't the first time you've been bitching like a loose-
pussied schoolgirl, Guenther but I'm more amused at your extreme level
of hypocrisy you're demonstrating in your mindXXXX-inducing posts.
> What a blithering idiot! It is all there for anyone with eyes in their
> sockets to see! Fraser's reply to your asinine retort contains a nice
> clue for the feebly minded like yourself in form of the word
> "(parenthetically)". But your stupidity evidently surpasses anything
> seen until now. The following is the relevant part of Carmody's
> article:
You recall that thread I started? Someone asked me for a definition
and I gave them a SOLID EXAMPLE -- five actually. Everything was all
there for anyone with their eyes in their sockets to see, like you
said there. But as long as someone starts a topic that you strongly
disbelieve in you will gladly ignore the facts and fill the thread
with swastikas and all your nazi literature.
> meaning)?. Why don't you do yourself a favor and inflict some serious
> injuries to your brain? It might actually improve your skills and
> intelligence.
> And please, do not paraphrase me you miserable wretch, have you got no
> dignity at all?
Lucky for you I'm already doing that, by reading your posts. I can't
think of a better way to induce irreversible brain damage than to
listen to a loose little Hitler go apeshit. It does have a comic side
to it, though, maybe I enjoy it because it's just like taking c0ke,
the pleasure of experiencing the feeling of having a continuous orgasm
for five minutes rocks when on the outside it's really giving you one
hardcore skull XXXXing. Either way, I enjoy the drugs, I thank you for
the freebies.
| |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com 2007-03-01, 9:55 pm |
| On Mar 1, 7:44 am, "George Johnson" <matri...@voyager.net> wrote:
> <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172688099.335782.100130@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> | On Feb 28, 9:41 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>| wrote:
> | > industrial_...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> | > > define "normality"
> | >
> | > There was a very brief definition in the bit that you snipped.
> | >
> | > Read, think, click reply, edit, send <- Good
> | > Ignore, click reply, gibber, send <- Bad. That's what you're doing.
> | >
> | > Phil
> | > --
> | > "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
> | > so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
> | > /In God We Trust, Inc./.
> |
> | That wasn't a definition, moron that was just a bunch of 0's and 1's
> | followed by gibberish.
>
> And this response on your part pretty much explains why nobody takes
> you seriously.
>
> You haven't embraced the mathematical education you definitely need to
> comprehend half of what we casually discuss here (Chi-Squares are a test for
> random distribution thusly being moderately important tests for efficiency
> in data-compression routine results, and you'd already know that if you even
> bothered to use GOOGLE to look up the words you consider "gibberish").
> Furthermore, you lack DIPLOMACY.
>
> I have stated that earlier in another post.
>
> You are so enslaved by your emotions that you cannot practice even the
> slightest level of manners to even get a polite conversation going. Here is
> a simple technique for you to try. Firstly, write the response you want and
> blurt out every emotionally-keyed insulting word you desire, then
> start all over again a few lines below your "improperly emotional response",
> but reword it to be less direct or less insulting. Once you vomit out your
> passions, you can more DIPLOMATICALLY reword your posts to make them less
> repelling to the casual reader.
Save the lecture for Guenther, cuz I have a "no problemo" discussion
going on in my thread from Feb 19.
> A great hobby of British culture revolves around how to DIPLOMATICALLY
> tell another person that they feel the other chap's mother not only fellates
> horses while writhing in cow pies, but also is the illegitimate result of a
> Welshman boffing a ewe. You see, the wording is not "directly insulting" so
> the immediate emotional response is to ponder how badly one has been
> insulted, but how badly. Or in "more direct" terms, you are a gushing
> honkbag of lackwit blurtings from your constantly fragile emotional
> squirtings. Until you realize that and learn some tact in your
> conversations I and others will mock you privately and openly (although that
> tends to make others look less dignified, I personally care little for
> clueless obnoxious dumbasses which come into a polite club and begin to shit
> in the punchbowl like a rancid ring repulsive crazy-ass bag-lady). The
> common Internet terms which describe you accurately at this point is
> "Bloviating Boring Brainless Bastard", "Lobotomized Crack-Head Attention
> Whore", and the more polite term of "Troll with a Permanently
> Sand-Encrusted-Vagina".
Holy shit... just how many times have you fapped while you wrote all
that insane cock-filled wonder of text? I also wouldn't mind if I had
that much sand in my vagina because at least I don't type with cum-
encrusted hands (poor keyboard.)
> When you learn to disagree with people politely and state it as such in
> a manner befitting a gentleman I will cease whacking you aside the head with
> the "clue stick". I am not being elitist, you are simply posted nothing
> that would exceed the barest measure of any other worthless dumbass that
> decided to wander in here and quack out your painfully obvious ignorance
> daily. At the moment, I can honestly state that I have met (in my
> kindergarten years) children whom have better manners and more a worthwhile
> mathematical educational level for the discussions here than what you spout
> out in this newsgroup.
I know I am simply posted nothing -- err, whatever that means. I dunno
about you but many of you couldn't "politely disagree and lead on an
intelligent discussion" (except for Willem) when Jacko, Jules and many
others brought their ideas to your attention. Most of them didn't
bother with your types (most smart people don't) after "whacking your
heads with clue sticks." I've seen Jules explain for the TWENTIETH
time that he can only compress RAD, he explained it by using the "byte
frequency" routine, e.g. I can compress files that contain all 256
bytes equally occuring throughout the file (0.39%)" and you people
STILL didn't get it (one guy spewed some BS about how a file can
contain all 256 bytes but not be random etc.) And I dunno how many
times you guys still were on and on with the counting argument "ITS
IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPRESS ALL FILES!!" but the guy got tired of your
insane ramblings so I guess he gave up. But to be fair his
explanations WERE indeed vague (the "data translation" method) And
whenever he would explain the crucial parts of his algorith, you
people would bring up the least important parts of his post.
Btw, these people you call psychos have at least one thing over you
since they are mentally mature enough to accept criticism. Whenever
somebody is rude to you or Guenther ya'll XXXXing FREAK ('not used to
having someone talk back to you, huh Guenther?)
| |
| Phil Carmody 2007-03-02, 3:56 am |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com writes:
> You recall that thread I started? Someone asked me for a definition
> and I gave them [something that wasn't a definition]
Have you ever wondered why people think you're an ignoramus?
You seem to be proud of your own inabilities.
Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.
| |
| George Johnson 2007-03-02, 6:56 pm |
| <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172800327.949043.176250@31g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 1, 7:44 am, "George Johnson" <matri...@voyager.net> wrote:
| > <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| >
| > news:1172688099.335782.100130@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
| > | On Feb 28, 9:41 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>|
wrote:
| > | > industrial_...@hotmail.com writes:
| >
| > | > > define "normality"
| > | >
| > | > There was a very brief definition in the bit that you snipped.
| > | >
| > | > Read, think, click reply, edit, send <- Good
| > | > Ignore, click reply, gibber, send <- Bad. That's what you're doing.
| > | >
| > | > Phil
| > | > --
| > | > "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side
blank
| > | > so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes
of
| > | > /In God We Trust, Inc./.
| > |
| > | That wasn't a definition, moron that was just a bunch of 0's and 1's
| > | followed by gibberish.
| >
| > And this response on your part pretty much explains why nobody
takes
| > you seriously.
| >
| > You haven't embraced the mathematical education you definitely need
to
| > comprehend half of what we casually discuss here (Chi-Squares are a test
for
| > random distribution thusly being moderately important tests for
efficiency
| > in data-compression routine results, and you'd already know that if you
even
| > bothered to use GOOGLE to look up the words you consider "gibberish").
| > Furthermore, you lack DIPLOMACY.
[more sand-filled-vagina eruptions from <industrial_one@hotmail.com>
gone gone gone ]
Well, let's all thank you for your efforts and present you a award for
"Most Worthless Time Waster of the Month".
(Waits for "Industrial_One" to come up to the stage)
("Industrial_One" takes the podium and begins his acceptance speech...)
"Industrial_One": "I thank you all for loving my pointless rehashing of
tired old subjects. XXXX you all, you stupid gs! XXXX you!" (points
finger at me) "XXXX you!" (points finger at first row of the audience)
"XXXX me daddy!" (points at daddy) "I need you to XXXX me so very bad,
daddy!"
============
You have certainly proven that you are not simply ignorant, but entirely
unlearning in your ego-blinded stupidity.
Do you honestly think anyone will seriously work with you if you're
hurling infantile vulgarities at them? Respect is EARNED, not given. You
at the moment, are in such a deep hole of negative respect levels I wouldn't
even bother to piss on you if you were trapped in a burning trash dumpster.
Frankly, since this is how you treat people that even bother to respond to
your infantile drivel, you should not wonder why people know you are a
dumbass attention whore.
| |
| George Johnson 2007-03-02, 6:56 pm |
| "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87bqjcasn4.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
| industrial_one@hotmail.com writes:
| > You recall that thread I started? Someone asked me for a definition
| > and I gave them [something that wasn't a definition]
|
| Have you ever wondered why people think you're an ignoramus?
| You seem to be proud of your own inabilities.
|
| Phil
| --
Well there is a logical reason for this in explaining the
"Industrial_One", "Incompetent People Do Not Recognize Their Own
Incompetence". "Industrial_One" is arrogant & ignorant (and a utter
ill-mannered child).
http://www.google.com/search?&q=inc...o+not+recognize
To quote a great scholar, "Genius is in recognizing how little ones self
actually knows about this vast universe."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...hive/2000/01/18
/MN73840.DTL
Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find
They're blind to own failings, others' skills
Erica Goode, New York Times
Tuesday, January 18, 2000
There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is
haunted by the fear that he might be one of them.
Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because,
according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are
incompetent.
On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies
conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely
confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do
things well.
``I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad
at, and I didn't know it,'' Dunning said.
One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured,
the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often
are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper
appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology.
``Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,
but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote
Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and
Dunning.
This deficiency in ``self-monitoring skills,'' the researchers said, helps
explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that
are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and
repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding
forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.
In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of
incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on
tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to
``grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed.
In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively
linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed
much greater distortions in their self-estimates.
Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for
example, subjects who scored only in the 12th percentile guessed that they
had scored in the 62nd percentile, and deemed their overall skill at logical
reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.
Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test
ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to ``identify
grammatically correct standard English,'' and estimated their test scores to
be at the 61st percentile.
On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according
to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an
``expert'' panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects were also
more apt to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is
idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less
conclusive.
Unlike unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger
and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their competence. The
researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information
about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others
were performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the
``false consensus effect.''
When high-scoring subjects were asked to ``grade'' the grammar tests of
their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own
performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly
themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some
subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.
``Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in
others,'' the researchers concluded.
In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover if training
would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In
fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability
of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they
found.
The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion
that ``he who knows best knows how little he knows.''
And the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that
overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast
majority of people rate themselves as ``above average'' on a wide array of
abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in
statistical terms. This overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for
tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.
Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David C. Funder, a psychology
professor at the University of California at Riverside, for example, said he
suspects that most lay people have only a vague idea of the meaning of
``average'' in statistical terms.
``I'm not sure the average person thinks of `average' or `percentile' in
quite that literal a sense,'' Funder said, ``so `above average' might mean
to them `pretty good,' or `OK,' or `doing all right.' And if, in fact,
people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really
hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong, using the statistical
criterion.''
But Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated there are
many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency and not
be aware of it.
In various situations, feedback is absent, or at least ambiguous; even a
humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And
faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out
``You stink!'' -- truthful though this assessment may be.
| |
| industrial_one@hotmail.com 2007-03-05, 7:56 am |
| On Mar 2, 8:42 am, "George Johnson" <matri...@voyager.net> wrote:
> "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:87bqjcasn4.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org...| industrial_...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> | > You recall that thread I started? Someone asked me for a definition
> | > and I gave them [something that wasn't a definition]
> |
> | Have you ever wondered why people think you're an ignoramus?
> | You seem to be proud of your own inabilities.
> |
> | Phil
> | --
>
> Well there is a logical reason for this in explaining the
> "Industrial_One", "Incompetent People Do Not Recognize Their Own
> Incompetence". "Industrial_One" is arrogant & ignorant (and a utter
> ill-mannered child).http://www.google.com/search?&q=inc...o+not+recognize
>
> To quote a great scholar, "Genius is in recognizing how little ones self
> actually knows about this vast universe."
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic.../archive/200...
> Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find
> They're blind to own failings, others' skills
> Erica Goode, New York Times
> Tuesday, January 18, 2000
>
> There are many incompetent people in the world. Dr. David A. Dunning is
> haunted by the fear that he might be one of them.
>
> Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, worries about this because,
> according to his research, most incompetent people do not know that they are
> incompetent.
>
> On the contrary. People who do things badly, Dunning has found in studies
> conducted with a graduate student, Justin Kruger, are usually supremely
> confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do
> things well.
>
> ``I began to think that there were probably lots of things that I was bad
> at, and I didn't know it,'' Dunning said.
>
> One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured,
> the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often
> are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.
>
> The incompetent, therefore, suffer doubly, they suggested in a paper
> appearing in the December issue of the Journal of Personality and Social
> Psychology.
>
> ``Not only do they reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices,
> but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,'' wrote
> Kruger, now an assistant professor at the University of Illinois, and
> Dunning.
>
> This deficiency in ``self-monitoring skills,'' the researchers said, helps
> explain the tendency of the humor-impaired to persist in telling jokes that
> are not funny, of day traders to repeatedly jump into the market -- and
> repeatedly lose out -- and of the politically clueless to continue holding
> forth at dinner parties on the fine points of campaign strategy.
>
> In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning tested their theory of
> incompetence. They found that subjects who scored in the lowest quartile on
> tests of logic, English grammar and humor were also the most likely to
> ``grossly overestimate'' how well they had performed.
>
> In all three tests, subjects' ratings of their ability were positively
> linked to their actual scores. But the lowest-ranked participants showed
> much greater distortions in their self-estimates.
>
> Asked to evaluate their performance on the test of logical reasoning, for
> example, subjects who scored only in the 12th percentile guessed that they
> had scored in the 62nd percentile, and deemed their overall skill at logical
> reasoning to be at the 68th percentile.
>
> Similarly, subjects who scored at the 10th percentile on the grammar test
> ranked themselves at the 67th percentile in the ability to ``identify
> grammatically correct standard English,'' and estimated their test scores to
> be at the 61st percentile.
>
> On the humor test, in which participants were asked to rate jokes according
> to their funniness (subjects' ratings were matched against those of an
> ``expert'' panel of professional comedians), low-scoring subjects were also
> more apt to have an inflated perception of their skill. But because humor is
> idiosyncratically defined, the researchers said, the results were less
> conclusive.
>
> Unlike unskilled counterparts, the most able subjects in the study, Kruger
> and Dunning found, were likely to underestimate their competence. The
> researchers attributed this to the fact that, in the absence of information
> about how others were doing, highly competent subjects assumed that others
> were performing as well as they were -- a phenomenon psychologists term the
> ``false consensus effect.''
>
> When high-scoring subjects were asked to ``grade'' the grammar tests of
> their peers, however, they quickly revised their evaluations of their own
> performance. In contrast, the self-assessments of those who scored badly
> themselves were unaffected by the experience of grading others; some
> subjects even further inflated their estimates of their own abilities.
>
> ``Incompetent individuals were less able to recognize competence in
> others,'' the researchers concluded.
>
> In a final experiment, Dunning and Kruger set out to discover if training
> would help modify the exaggerated self-perceptions of incapable subjects. In
> fact, a short training session in logical reasoning did improve the ability
> of low-scoring subjects to assess their performance realistically, they
> found.
>
> The findings, the psychologists said, support Thomas Jefferson's assertion
> that ``he who knows best knows how little he knows.''
>
> And the research meshes neatly with other work indicating that
> overconfidence is common; studies have found, for example, that the vast
> majority of people rate themselves as ``above average'' on a wide array of
> abilities -- though such an abundance of talent would be impossible in
> statistical terms. This overestimation, studies indicate, is more likely for
> tasks that are difficult than for those that are easy.
>
> Such studies are not without critics. Dr. David C. Funder, a psychology
> professor at the University of California at Riverside, for example, said he
> suspects that most lay people have only a vague idea of the meaning of
> ``average'' in statistical terms.
>
> ``I'm not sure the average person thinks of `average' or `percentile' in
> quite that literal a sense,'' Funder said, ``so `above average' might mean
> to them `pretty good,' or `OK,' or `doing all right.' And if, in fact,
> people mean something subjective when they use the word, then it's really
> hard to evaluate whether they're right or wrong, using the statistical
> criterion.''
>
> But Dunning said his current research and past studies indicated there are
> many reasons why people would tend to overestimate their competency and not
> be aware of it.
>
> In various situations, feedback is absent, or at least ambiguous; even a
> humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter. And
> faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting out
> ``You stink!'' -- truthful though this assessment may be.
You can TALK, fatty. But I own j00!!!
http://i18.tinypic.com/3zvzfko.jpg
| |
| George Johnson 2007-03-05, 6:56 pm |
| <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173095856.750009.245050@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 2, 8:42 am, "George Johnson" <matri...@voyager.net> wrote:
| > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
[clipped]
| > In various situations, feedback is absent, or at least ambiguous; even a
| > humorless joke, for example, is likely to be met with polite laughter.
And
| > faced with incompetence, social norms prevent most people from blurting
out
| > ``You stink!'' -- truthful though this assessment may be.
|
| You can TALK, fatty. But I own j00!!!
|
| http://i18.tinypic.com/3zvzfko.jpg
Yep, you are incompetent, boring, and a perfect example of the quote,
"There are limits to genuis, there are no such restrictions on stupidity."
|
|
|
|
|