>It might not be interesting to you and I am sure you know how to apply them.
I am saying that pointing out that some people misuse some tools is not interesting without specific examples and problems it causes.
>It is however important if large groups of disciplines are not able to apply it properly.
Of course it is, let's try to identify such situations... o just let's try to find one problematic example.
>It might not be interesting to you and I am sure you know how to apply them.
It is however important if large groups of disciplines are not able to apply it properly.
Instead of calling him a vile idiot and refusing to even look at what he is trying to say you could see this statement as a cry for help, a provocation to start a debate and so on.
I've read his 3 books and listened to many talks. He just doesn't have anything specific to say. If he is crying for help as you said why not describe some situations where using standard deviation instead of MAD causes problems ?
I am not refusing to listen to him. The fact that he writes about those problem is the reason I invested a lot of time reading his books despite terrible writing and lack of editing. I was willing to go through just to see what he has to say. It turns out there is nothing, not one example of systematic error people make which could be corrected. It's just hate for anything and everything often paired with failure to understand the most basic statistical concept.
>The deeper issues here, I think is that he is probably not death wrong nor death right and so it's really impossible to prove anything objectively but rather different experiences yield different opinions.
He is dead wrong about standard deviation not being useful for "real life". He is probably right about "some people misuses it some of the time thing" but it's really not interesting unless you give something specific which he never does.
>I personally believe that sometimes you have to simplify in order to get a fundamental discussion started.
I agree. The problem is not simplifying he just doesn't have anything to say. It's not one article without examples or arguments. His whole book is like that and then his talks.
> In fact i find the aftermath of those provocations to be the most enlightening.
And I see danger in it. The guy has some serious following. It can't be good if people read his stuff and start believing that those risk managers are just morons, that scientists misuse standard deviation because of misunderstanding in 1893 and all other ridiculous things he claims. You can really gain an impression that everybody is a moron, academia is a waste and math doesn't apply if you don't know better and take his writing seriously.
I am saying that pointing out that some people misuse some tools is not interesting without specific examples and problems it causes.
>It is however important if large groups of disciplines are not able to apply it properly.
Of course it is, let's try to identify such situations... o just let's try to find one problematic example.
>It might not be interesting to you and I am sure you know how to apply them. It is however important if large groups of disciplines are not able to apply it properly. Instead of calling him a vile idiot and refusing to even look at what he is trying to say you could see this statement as a cry for help, a provocation to start a debate and so on.
I've read his 3 books and listened to many talks. He just doesn't have anything specific to say. If he is crying for help as you said why not describe some situations where using standard deviation instead of MAD causes problems ? I am not refusing to listen to him. The fact that he writes about those problem is the reason I invested a lot of time reading his books despite terrible writing and lack of editing. I was willing to go through just to see what he has to say. It turns out there is nothing, not one example of systematic error people make which could be corrected. It's just hate for anything and everything often paired with failure to understand the most basic statistical concept.
>The deeper issues here, I think is that he is probably not death wrong nor death right and so it's really impossible to prove anything objectively but rather different experiences yield different opinions.
He is dead wrong about standard deviation not being useful for "real life". He is probably right about "some people misuses it some of the time thing" but it's really not interesting unless you give something specific which he never does.
>I personally believe that sometimes you have to simplify in order to get a fundamental discussion started.
I agree. The problem is not simplifying he just doesn't have anything to say. It's not one article without examples or arguments. His whole book is like that and then his talks.
> In fact i find the aftermath of those provocations to be the most enlightening.
And I see danger in it. The guy has some serious following. It can't be good if people read his stuff and start believing that those risk managers are just morons, that scientists misuse standard deviation because of misunderstanding in 1893 and all other ridiculous things he claims. You can really gain an impression that everybody is a moron, academia is a waste and math doesn't apply if you don't know better and take his writing seriously.