Re: WHITE EUROPEANS SUCK
Ian Stirling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in part: And both of you have just repeated the website that the spammer wanted publicised. I'm sure it's very gratefull. But White Europeans do suck. And so do other humans. At least according to http://www.subgenius.com. Bob has chunks of people like Hal Turner in his, uh, pipe. Great, now I owe another on-topic post. Corry -- It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net/ April Llewellyn wrote in hsv.general: I love you, unclaimed mysteries person. =o) Well, not really, since I have no clue who you are, but GOD, sarcasm! So refreshin! (^__^) = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: WHITE EUROPEANS SUCK
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote: Ian Stirling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in part: And both of you have just repeated the website that the spammer wanted publicised. I'm sure it's very gratefull. But White Europeans do suck. And so do other humans. But only when they've got loppipops in their mouths. Can I claim this as the final word? Bob -- Bob O'Hara Metapopulation Research Group Division of Population Biology Department of Ecology and Systematics PO Box 17 (Arkadiankatu 7) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland NOTE: NEW TELEPHONE NUMBER tel: +358 9 191 28779 fax: +358 9 191 28701 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To induce catatonia, visit: http://www.helsinki.fi/science/metapop/ It is being said of a certain poet, that though he tortures the English language, he has still never yet succeeded in forcing it to reveal his meaning - Beachcomber = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: how to compare these 2 functions(asymptotically)
kmswys wrote: lg*(lg(n)) and lg(lg*n) lg* is iterated logarithm (base 2), defined as the smallest i such that ith iteration of logarithm is less or equal one. lg*(lg(n)) is just lg*(n) - 1, asymptotically ~ lg*(n) The second expression is thus asymptotically the log of the first. -Robert Dawson = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Definitions of Likert scale, Likert item, etc.
At 01:17 PM 9/9/01 +1200, Magenta wrote: It would treat don't agree as the zero point. So an answer at the 100% point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point. again ... one (of many) problems with this notion is that it assumes that a person who opts for this choice ... has NO degree of feeling with the statement at all ... when in fact ... since you have given this person NO other way to respond ... it could be because the person DISagrees with the statement ... or, in fact, rather than having zero opinion about it ... does NOT want to respond or thinks the item is ambiguous ... and hence will use the don't agree as a way to NOT making a response ... but still making one _ dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Definitions of Likert scale, Likert item, etc.
At 01:17 PM 9/9/01 +1200, Magenta wrote: It would treat don't agree as the zero point. So an answer at the 100% point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point. let's say the item is i like statistics and, we have two people ... PERSON 1 who HATES statistics ... and PERSON 2 one who really has had no exposure to statistics and therefore, really has no opinion at this point in time and the response options are: I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS || I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THIS 0 5 10 NOW, both person A and person B ... respond I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS (which is dictated by the item response possibilities) are you trying to tell us that you would consider both of these responses as reflecting the same degree of agreement and/or ... compared to someone who might have responded 5 ... equally different than the person who said 5??? _ dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Tenure Track Positions for Statistics
Thanks very much for posting the announcement of tenure-track position openings. Carl --- Central Michigan University - One or Two Statistics Tenure-Track Assistant Professor Positions The Department of Mathematics at Central Michigan University invites applications for a tenure-track, assistant professor position in Statistics beginning Fall 2002. A second tenure track position may be available. Preference will be given to applicants in computational or applied statistics, but strong candidates from all areas of statistics are urged to apply. Candidates are expected to have a Ph.D. in statistics or a closely related field, excellent verbal and written communication skills, and demonstrate a strong commitment to and potential for teaching, research and external funding. ABD candidates will be considered if degree completion is imminent. Preference will be given to applicants who demonstrate the ability to contribute to the department's Ph.D. program and proposed M.S. in Applied Statistics. Duties include undergraduate and graduate teaching, research, submitting external funding proposals, and service. The department offers bachelor's degrees in mathematics education, mathematics, statistics and actuarial science, master's degrees in mathematics and mathematics education, and a Ph.D. in mathematics with a concentration in college teaching. Further information is available at http://www.cst.cmich.edu/units/mth and at the job web site of the American Statistical Association. Submit a letter of application, resume, copies of transcripts, a statement of teaching philosophy and a statement of proposed research plans, and have three letters of recommendation sent directly to: Search Committee, Department of Mathematics, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859. Applications will be accepted and considered until the positions are filled. Review of applications will begin October 15, 2001. CMU, an AA/EO institution, is strongly and actively committed to increasing diversity within its community (see www.cmich.edu.aaeo.html). CMU is a doctoral/research-intensive institution recognized for strong undergraduate education and a range of focused graduate programs and research. = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: how to compare these 2 functions(asymptotically)
thanks! = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
H-Statistic Can't find lookup table for large number of samples
Hi- I am a human health risk assessor. I am trying to calculate the 95% UCL of a lognormal distribution. The data sets I have all have about 350 samples. I can't find a lookup table for the H-Statistic for more than 100 samples. If anyone can point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks-JDK = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
90% of all families are not prepared
90% of all families are not prepared either to respond or provide care and support in time of need, crises, extended health concern or death. Forever Family has a solution, "The Family Care Training Series" Go to www.ForeverFamily.com to learn more. to be removed from our list go to www.foreverfamily.com/forms/remove.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Definitions of Likert scale, Likert item, etc.
I incorporate a separate N/A option. This could be included in an earlier question that would ensure respondents who should not answer the questions were skipped over those questions. This is standard practice, e.g. in CATI situations. CATI = computer assisted telephone interviewing. IMO the problem has become incorrect survey question pattern design in this case, rather than incorrect response design. cheers Michelle Dennis Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... At 01:17 PM 9/9/01 +1200, Magenta wrote: It would treat don't agree as the zero point. So an answer at the 100% point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point. let's say the item is i like statistics and, we have two people ... PERSON 1 who HATES statistics ... and PERSON 2 one who really has had no exposure to statistics and therefore, really has no opinion at this point in time and the response options are: I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS || I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THIS 0 5 10 NOW, both person A and person B ... respond I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS (which is dictated by the item response possibilities) are you trying to tell us that you would consider both of these responses as reflecting the same degree of agreement and/or ... compared to someone who might have responded 5 ... equally different than the person who said 5??? _ dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ = = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
Re: Definitions of Likert scale, Likert item, etc.
At 11:29 AM 9/11/01 +1200, Magenta wrote: I incorporate a separate N/A option. This could be included in an earlier question that would ensure respondents who should not answer the questions were skipped over those questions. This is standard practice, e.g. in CATI situations. CATI = computer assisted telephone interviewing. IMO the problem has become incorrect survey question pattern design in this case, rather than incorrect response design. i will try one more shot at this again, say the item is ... i like statistics SCENARIO A and, 2 people using your response scale ... respond: i don't agree) 0 - 5 i strongly agree person 1 is here ^^ person 2 is here ^^ SCENARIO B now, what if the same two people are presented with the following additional item: i DON'T like statistics i don't agree 0 - 5 i strongly agree person 1 is here ^^ person 2 is -^^^ the combination of SCENARIO A plus SCENARIO B ... suggests that person 1 IS more or less neutral ... BUT, person 2 is really ANTI statistics ... perhaps even HATES it but, with ONLY SCENARIO A ... you CANNOT know that these two persons are different ... and to assume that they are both at the 0 point on your scale ... is a mistake thus, the problem here is NOT with the item or stem design ... it is most surely with the response options given to the S you seem to be forgetting ... or wanting to bypass ... the notion that for attitudes anyway ... there is an OBJECT that ... we have some valence for ... or not ... and one of the dimensions is of course strength of valence but, also ... which your approach misses ... the DIRECTION of that valence ... ie, the tendency to want to approach it or avoid it ... when you create an item ... that in itself has some direction to it ... agree with the statement provides information about the S and his or her strength AND direction ... but, for a person who is inclined in the opposite direction of the way the item is stated ... a i don't agree or 0 ... does not provide that S with ANY response that fits his/her attitudinal pattern ... thus, without the other end of the continuum being one of the RESPONSE OPTIONS for the S ... the 0 point i don't agree simply provides ambiguous data to the data collector cheers Michelle Dennis Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... At 01:17 PM 9/9/01 +1200, Magenta wrote: It would treat don't agree as the zero point. So an answer at the 100% point would be interpreted as twice as strong as an answer at the 50% point. let's say the item is i like statistics and, we have two people ... PERSON 1 who HATES statistics ... and PERSON 2 one who really has had no exposure to statistics and therefore, really has no opinion at this point in time and the response options are: I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS || I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THIS 0 5 10 NOW, both person A and person B ... respond I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS (which is dictated by the item response possibilities) are you trying to tell us that you would consider both of these responses as reflecting the same degree of agreement and/or ... compared to someone who might have responded 5 ... equally different than the person who said 5??? _ dennis roberts, educational psychology, penn state university 208 cedar, AC 8148632401, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ = = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ = == dennis roberts, penn state university educational psychology, 8148632401 http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =
