The debate had turned into the reliability and validity of measurement and so this was the post I wanted to put in for what it is worth.

Let's look at reliability and later the validity of the "measures" used to ascertain both in proving which is more reliable and valid measure of vapid.

quote:

---

If you google "she is vapid" and "he is vapid"

---

quote:

---

'he is vapid' produces 213,000 more hits than for 'she is vapid'.

---

Really folks this appears to be the argument.

Reliability and Validity: what's the Difference

quote:

---

Reliability is the consistency of your measurement, or the degree to which an instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same condition with the same subjects,

---

Coming from a stats point of view, when using and not using " marks around words "he is vapid" or "she is vapid" in comparison to using no quotation marks actually shows "a lack of internal consistency." In other words, the instrument of measure "the use of quotation marks" is NOT reliable measure of these concepts, as removing the quote marks shows a complete different "estimate."

Concerning validity, as suggested in the reference page, "involves the degree to which one is measuring what one is supposed to, more simply, the accuracy of the measurement. I believe the the combined words have validity in the assertains stated here: he is vapid and she is vapid, but the internal consistency is lacking because inserting quotes or no quote marks should show internal consistency and don't.

Unionist you were trying to assert that only this reliability measure was valid, but Test/Retest, is the more conservative method to estimate reliability. Essentially what Remind showed was that your "measurement" lacked "internal consistency." She used a different grouping (no quote marks) to measure the same concepts of he is vapid and she is vapid. The difference in numbers of responses in the Google search for both genders did not generate a high correlation and thus lacks reliability.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:

That would be valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The difference between Googling "she is vapid" (with quotation marks) and she is vapid (without quotation marks) as a means of determining how often female entities are called vapid on the interweb is about the same as the difference between using an anemometer and a measuring cup to measure wind speed. One gives results that have a certain degree of both reliability and validity, while the other gives results that have neither validity nor reliability in any degree at all.

The alleged difference between reliability and validity therefore is nihil ad rem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Ok, but if she starts talking about chi-square distributions I'm outta here.

---

Ok, so now onto chi-square distributions.

For those who are just oldgoats and really challenged, the internet provides a free Chi Square Calculator for all your computing enjoyment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
I have to agree with that. I also think Sarah Palin is vapid.

---

P.S. That's another reason why Googling "she is vapid" is beside the point. The original reference to which that thread pointed was a reference to Alice Klein's "rhetorical vapidity", which is very different from saying Klein herself is "vapid".

That's why I did a Google search on "rhetorical vapidity" (with the quotes, natch) and showed that, on the internet at least, that phrase was not an anti-female trope.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't agree with that. Some of her statements are vapid, but I don't think that adjective applies to her as a person. It means dull, or lacking in liveliness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Golly. And at first you seemed so nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't agree with that. Some of her statements are vapid, but I don't think that adjective applies to her as a person. It means dull, or lacking in liveliness.

P.S. That's another reason why Googling "she is vapid" is beside the point. The original reference to which that thread pointed was a reference to Alice Klein's "rhetorical vapidity", which is very different from saying Klein herself is "vapid".

That's why I did a Google search on "rhetorical vapidity" (with the quotes, natch) and showed that, on the internet at least, that phrase was not an anti-female trope.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Heh, heh.

You might also want to check out the difference between "immanent" and "imminent".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:

I still am oldgoat and so are you.

---

Well yes, very true. Just a brief note of explanation and I'll no longer bother the mathematically competent. In grade school, I was lousy at math, and in high school it became a real full blown phobia. Combined with other things going on in my life, it caused me to never actually pass grade 10. When I finally made it to university years later as a mature student I found I needed to take stats if I wanted to get an MSW, but I might as well have tried to learn to fly. Oddly enough I managed research methodology ok, which uses math differently.

I ended up doing the same sort of stuff anyway, but through a more roundabout route and with a history degree.

So carry on with your serious discussion.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
And I googled rhetorical vapiditywithout quotes to see if it had internal consistency, and guess what it did!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janfromthebruce:
Unionist you were trying to assert that only this reliability measure was valid, but Test/Retest, is the more conservative method to estimate reliability. Essentially what Remind showed was that your "measurement" lacked "internal consistency." She used a different grouping (no quote marks) to measure the same concepts of he is vapid and she is vapid. The difference in numbers of responses in the Google search for both genders did not generate a high correlation and thus lacks reliability.

I hope that made sense, and just wanted to move from a personal debate.

---

Hi jftb, just noticed your post for the first time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:

Well yes, very true. Just a brief note of explanation and I'll no longer bother the mathematically competent. In grade school, I was lousy at math, and in high school it became a real full blown phobia. Combined with other things going on in my life, it caused me to never actually pass grade 10. When I finally made it to university years later as a mature student I found I needed to take stats if I wanted to get an MSW, but I might as well have tried to learn to fly. Oddly enough I managed research methodology ok, which uses math differently.

I ended up doing the same sort of stuff anyway, but through a more roundabout route and with a history degree.

So carry on with your serious discussion.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

---

Then I took a first year economics course in university which required some calculus. I got 92%.

I think my math phobia was just that - a phobia. I'd probably be good at it if I did it now, but I've never gotten around to trying.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Then I took a first year economics course in university which required some calculus. I got 92%.

---

In fact, I found that economics course so interesting that I wanted to major in it. But at Queen's, where I was going at the time, you have to take first year calculus in order to complete the Economics degree - it was a required course. Terribly disappointing to me, but I knew there was no way I could pass a calculus course when I had absolutely no math background to speak of - I can barely do basic algebra.

So I majored in Philosophy instead.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
and went to university to do a bachelor's in Experimental Psychology, which was mostly advanced statistical analysis. I did quite well,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I can barely do basic algebra.

So I majored in Philosophy instead.

[ 27 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Since this seems to be more about research methods than a discussion about rabble content, should we move this to humanities and science?

---

I've done Reliability and Repeatability studies on measuring equipment at work. We used precision instruments made to measure steel parts. And I found numerous ways to manipuate results.

And don't get me started on Statistical Process Control.

While it's valuable to attempt to quantify something in order to problem solve, it's tricky enough when we are dealing with solid "things". I think it goes irrevocably awry when we try to quantify an abstract concept.

But, we will continue to do this, if only to keep the social "sciences" alive and well.

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Twelve years later (93-94) when I did my B.Ed. there was a mandatory course in educational stats. Spent the night before the exam teaching an older buddy (he was 40, I was 30)the course material while we drank scotch. We both got through the exam the next day. So much for state dependent learning.

Our oldest son is not enjoying math in grade 6. C on his first test while having scored 119 out of 120 on spelling so far this year. My challenge at the moment is to prepare him for a test on geometry tomorrow. He's been developing some good mnemonics but we'll see how his coverage of the material is.

So, I'm dissapointed no one took the bait about my dig at social sciences. I once considered myself babbles slyest master baiter, but I will have to reconsider.

Anywho, I googled "Cervantes literature" and "Daniel Steel literature".

Apparently, there are 800,000 more people who consider Daniel Steel a bigger part of literature than Cervantes. (1,450,000 Cervantes hits to 2,250,000 Daniel Steel hits)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
I get compliments about my daughters, and when I do I say, yeah, well, Darwin took a break....

So, I'm dissapointed no one took the bait about my dig at social sciences. I once considered myself babbles slyest master baiter, but I will have to reconsider.

Anywho, I googled "Cervantes literature" and "Daniel Steel literature".

Apparently, there are 800,000 more people who consider Daniel Steel a bigger part of literature than Cervantes. (1,450,000 Cervantes hits to 2,250,000 Daniel Steel hits)

Happy reading.

---

Janfromthebruce/locquacious interesting vibrant, zero hits.

Don't you love imperical data?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Apparently, there are 800,000 more people who consider Daniel Steel a bigger part of literature than Cervantes. (1,450,000 Cervantes hits to 2,250,000 Daniel Steel hits).

---

Big fan, Spector?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Janfromthebruce/smartass, seven hits.

Janfromthebruce/locquacious interesting vibrant, zero hits.

Don't you love imperical data?

---