Fitting Data to a Multiple Regression Model: A Challenge
Reef Fish
I discussed, involving "model building",
RE> Totally lacking access to anything to with SPSS, I would
RE> be very pleased to be told how I might get hold of that
RE> data set. Sounds like an interesting and instructional
RE> exercise to try analysing it from a standing start.
On June 21, I wrote
RF> I don't see many eager volunteers to help on providing the
RF> data. Let me try to see if that data is STILL used in the
RF> current SPSS Manual.
Not getting any response about the data set, I wrote on June 22,
"I just remembered now, that I review the book by Cox and Snell,
"Applied Statistics, Principles and Practice", in JASA (1984,
229-231) in which I re-analyzed their most detailed analysis in
the book, a multiple regression model building example, and
showed that as carefully as they showed many things THEY
considered that most other analysts would have missed, that
THEIR analysis was still too cut-and-dry. I produced several
alternative models (based on their data) in my review that
proved superior to their final model by significant PRACTICAL
significance margins as well as statistical significance. "
"JASA is widely accessible. Perhaps you or other readers may be
interested in taking a look at THAT example while I give it
another couple of days for anyone to help out with the SPSS data
before I type it MYSELF, and challenge everyone who thinks they
are good at "model building" to try their hands on it. "
I don't think any help is forthcoming, so here's the data, from
the 1975 SPSS Manual:
INVDEX Investors Index 1940 = 100
GNP Gross National Product (scaled)
C.PROF Corporate Profits before taxes
C.DIVD Corporate Dividends paid
INVDEX GNP C.PROF C.DIVD
76.4 7678 269 216 (1935)
99.5 8022 351 251 (1936)
105.9 8820 403 250
86.7 8871 362 290
83.7 9536 541 304
70.7 10911 619 317
61.7 12486 801 273
58.7 14816 917 243
76.3 15357 882 233
76.6 15927 858 211
91 15552 852 195
105.8 15251 966 230
96.8 15446 1008 286
102.8 15735 908 240
100 16343 851 278
120.3 17471 1065 361
153.8 18547 1034 300
158.2 20027 1081 296
146.5 20794 1089 287
165.6 20186 953 282
212.7 21920 1206 321
245.9 23811 1313 340
236 24117 1202 364
218.8 24397 1242 371
242.6 25242 1378 388
256.9 15849 1295 397
326.1 25615 1314 436
314.4 28287 1422 470
336 29740 1525 511
394 31650 1718 583
433.1 33814 1836 629 (1965)
408.5 35822 1762 655 (1966)
The example was used to illustrate the how to use the Multiple
Regression Procedure to fit INVDEX to three predictor variables
(GNP, C.PROF, and C.DIVD) and what outputs are given. The output
showed EVERYTHING to be highly statistically significant (anyone
can run this set of data and will notice that, which is obvious).
It turned out that the highly statistically significant results
are highly DECEPTIVE!
There are many hidden and important LESSONS behind the ROUTINE
fitting of this data set (let's say for prediction purposes).
This would be a TYPICAL problem in "model building" using multiple
regression methods -- that's all the hint I am going to give now.
If you think you fitting the data as given would yield a "good
result" (as was given in the SPSS Manual), because the R^2 is
well over 0.9, or whatever else that impressed you about the
fit, you deserve to FLUNK any course in "model building" OR
"data analysis"! Not even a low D!
So, the challenge is to do SOMETHING right! There is no "best"
answer or model for the data, but some are clearly far superior
to others -- that's the usual result in almost all problems of
fitting models to data. For this EXERCISE, there is NO need to
attempt to explain anything in terms of cause or influence.
Just a matter of FITTING and use the model for prediction
intervals at various values of the predictors.
So, there's something to be done besides sutffing the data into
the SPSS package and get the standard multiple regression results.
Let's see what discoveries and what model anyone might have found
or points to make for this exercise.
-- Bob.
Anon.
>
> The example was used to illustrate the how to use the Multiple
> Regression Procedure to fit INVDEX to three predictor variables
> (GNP, C.PROF, and C.DIVD) and what outputs are given. The output
> showed EVERYTHING to be highly statistically significant (anyone
> can run this set of data and will notice that, which is obvious).
>
this (output from R):
> reg3=lm(NVDEX~GNP+C.DIVD+C.PROF)
> anova(reg3)
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: NVDEX
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
GNP 1 323110 323110 318.7243 < 2.2e-16 ***
C.DIVD 1 35447 35447 34.9658 2.312e-06 ***
C.PROF 1 3 3 0.0028 0.9582
Residuals 28 28385 1014
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
anova() adds terms to the ANOVA table sequentially, so the order of the
terms is important. I don't know how the SS's are calculated in SPSS.
Actually, I think that both Reef Fish and I are right, but finding out
why we get different results is educational in itself, so I'm not going
to give it away. It's obvious once you spot it.
Bob
Jerry Dallal
While I'm no economist, I have to ask whether 1960 is a typ0.
--Jerry
Russell...@wdn.com
I'm no economist either (and would be highly insulted to be
called one ;-) ), but I think the GNP figure should be 25849,
not 15849.
Cheers,
Russell
Reef Fish
LESSON #1. ALWAYS examine the data for gross (and not so gross)
anomaly.
Jerry and Russell are making a good start toward their Fish
University "A".
Anon Bob O'Hara is maintaining the solid "F" he had earned
in this ng.
The 15849 is of course an obvious typo, not by ME (it took me
about 10 minutes to type the data, about 30 minutes to write
a multiple regression program in SPEAKEASY because I have NO
access to any statistical package; and at least an hour to
find and correct the half a dozen or so typos of MINE <G> by
checking against the results I had done 30 years ago). The
typos were in the 1975 SPSS Manual!
The TYPO was what contributed to all THREE variables being
statistically significant in the SPSS Manual -- without it ...
that's the next chapter/Lesson. :-)
In this case, the typo was so obvious that Jerry and Russell
spotted it without doing any analysis. But the way many gross
outliers and anomalies are seen are during various graphical
display or analysis of the data.
The early spotting of the gross typo took us to first base --
there were TWO typos in the 1975 SPSS Manual. For subsequent
anslysis, change the 1960 and 1961 values of GNP as follows:
15849 ----> 25849 (good guess by Russell)
25615 ----> 26515 (common transposition error, "56" for "65")
The corrected values were used by me in my Data Analysis
Lecture Notes since 1975. The corrections were taken from
the 1972 SPSS Manual.
NOW we have the corrected data set we can start the model building
exercise.
-- Bob.
Jerry Dallal
> In this case, the typo was so obvious that Jerry and Russell
> spotted it without doing any analysis. But the way many gross
> outliers and anomalies are seen are during various graphical
> display or analysis of the data.
Actually, I spotted it by graphing the data, which I consider analysis.
You can rouse any of my students from a sound sleep, shine a bright
light in his/her eyes, and shout at the top of your lungs, "What's the
first thing you do with a set of data?" Without missing a beat, s/he'll
mumble, "Display it..." and go back to sleep.
--Jerry
Jerry Dallal
> NOW we have the corrected data set we can start the model building
> exercise.
Bob, would you double check CDIVD for 1950? It seems out of whack with
the GNP. The GNP looks smooth over time. The CDIVD spikes in 1950.
Thanks!
Reef Fish
Good for you, Jerry!
That's the Corollary to Lesson 1. :-)
You must not get much sleep, because I didn't post the data until 1:57
am!
That was why I didn't think you had time to have even looked at any
display of the data, at 5 am.
Here's another SPSS anecdote. When I was at the GSB U. Chicago, in
1970, in a basement office across the hall from a Ph.D. grad student
in Behavioral Sciences, completing his thesis, Bill Ouchi.
http://www.williamouchi.com/
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/W/Wi/William_Ouchi.htm
Bill was struggling for over 2 MONTHS over some SPSS results he
couldn't understand, and came to me for help. The FIRST thing I
asked him was to show me his DATA -- NOT any of his SPSS regression
results.
It turned out that 2 MONTHS of his life went down the drain because
he missed punched (or miss-specified the input format) of some
numbers in the programs he ran. :-)
Bill is smart enough that he soon had chaired Professorships, first
at Stanford, and later at UCLA. If anyone ever run across Bill,
I am sure he'll remember what happened, and don't mind me telling
this anecdote about his SPSS runs. :-)
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
I could well be, but unimportant in our model building EXERCISE.
The data I gave is without typo (of mine) from the 1975 SPSS Manual.
I did not look at the C.DIVD data nearly as carefully because that
variable turned out to be "not needed" (I am giving part of the
solution/future-Lessons away now <G> by that remark).
I haven't looked at any SPSS Manual (or had any copy) since about the
mid 1980s. But if someone can check it and correct, it would be fine
with me.
It will not alter any of my discussions to come, on the problem based
on the data ACTUALLY given, or some further minor corrections to it.
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
there are reasons beyond pure macro economics for dividends
to vary. What I want to know is why the heading says the Investors
Index is defined as 100 in 1940, but in fact it is 1949 when it
equals 100.
Cheers,
Russell
--
All too often the study of data requires care.
Jerry Dallal
> Yes, but that could be real. I'm no more CEO than economist, but
> there are reasons beyond pure macro economics for dividends
> to vary. What I want to know is why the heading says the Investors
> Index is defined as 100 in 1940, but in fact it is 1949 when it
> equals 100.
>
> Cheers,
> Russell
Yes, but plot CDIVD, GNP, and YEAR against each other and you'll see why
I asked. I can't recall anything that would make '50 special. It
wasn't a presidential election year. The Korean War started in June,
but it lasted 3 years. It might be tied to something to do with it
being 5 years after the end of WWII, but that's stretching. When in
doubt, I always ask.
Unfortunately, not yet having retired, I've got a couple of projects to
work on today. Whatever else these data are, they are short time
series. I'm not sure how Bob is proposing we deal with them. Are we to
"pretend" they are 32 iidrvs as though it were a typical multiple
regression problem? The pre-1950 data make me especially anxious about
that approach. Take a look at what's going on in the scatterplots pre-1950.
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/invdex.jpg
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/3d.jpg
I'll try to get back to this tonight, although I suspect others will
pick the data apart long before then.
Anon.
> Reef Fish wrote:
>
>> In this case, the typo was so obvious that Jerry and Russell
>> spotted it without doing any analysis. But the way many gross
>> outliers and anomalies are seen are during various graphical
>> display or analysis of the data.
>
>
> Actually, I spotted it by graphing the data, which I consider analysis.
Me too. That's also the technique that lead me to seeing the typo, and
what the basic problems is with the data. I deciding that it's not
worth progressing further without seeking expert advice from an
economist: I don't even know how the response variable is arrived at (Oh
and I assume that there is a typo in the explanantion as well).
Bob
Reef Fish
Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> Yes, but that could be real. I'm no more CEO than economist, but
> there are reasons beyond pure macro economics for dividends
> to vary. What I want to know is why the heading says the Investors
> Index is defined as 100 in 1940, but in fact it is 1949 when it
> equals 100.
You'll do well as a "copy editor" for journals and books. They are
the ones who pick out MY typos, grammatic errors, and other faux
pas on the English language. :)
*I* claim that TYPO error! :-)
SPSS Manuals did give the correct definition, and it was in my notes,
that 1949 = 100. The key "9" was too close to "0" for my fat finger.
In any event, that typo is inconsequential treating this data as a
mere EXCERCISE with given data. I discount all ECONOMICS and
CORPORATE substance in the data because there are many valid concerns
that cannot be be usefully discussed on those subjects relative to the
data SPSS used for Multiple Regression on the data.
Given the above, are you ready to do some STATISTICAL analysis and
data-fitting/model-building?
-- Bob.
Jerry Dallal
for pre-1950 to provide additional detail.
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/loess_all.jpg
http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/loess_pre1950.jpg
Reef Fish
Anon Bob O'Hara. Your grade of "F" was earned in Fish University,
spotting the error notwithstanding, precise because of your paragraph
above AS WELL AS showing the regression results from "R" even after
you've discovered what was an OBVIOUS typo/blunder in the data.
If you had to do any TENTATIVE analysis, such as (removing the one
row with the obvious data blunder), it would have been appropriate
-- all you had to do was ASK, as Jerry and Russell did, instead
of plunging right into the GARBAGE pool.
I'll temporarily withdraw your "F", and would welcome your further
analysis based on the CORRECTED data.
That's actually my greatest criticism of BATCH statistical packages
such as SPSS and SAS which may spew out 5 to 10 pages of output of
one PROC after another, all of which may have been invalidated by
the result of the FIRST graphical display!
That's the advantage of an "interactive" software which does one
small task at a time, to accomplish what George Box (JASA article
on Science and Statistics) and my Statistical Encyclopedia
article on "Innteractive Data Analysis" talk about, in terms of
the ITERATIVE process of "model building".
As soon as SOMETHING is detected to require a change of course
or further examination, NO FURTHER RESULT should be printed that
would prove to be inappropriate given the finding during the
iterative process.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
Jerry Dallal wrote:
> Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> > Yes, but that could be real. I'm no more CEO than economist, but
> > there are reasons beyond pure macro economics for dividends
> > to vary. What I want to know is why the heading says the Investors
> > Index is defined as 100 in 1940, but in fact it is 1949 when it
> > equals 100.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Russell
>
>
> Yes, but plot CDIVD, GNP, and YEAR against each other and you'll see why
> I asked. I can't recall anything that would make '50 special. It
> wasn't a presidential election year. The Korean War started in June,
> but it lasted 3 years. It might be tied to something to do with it
> being 5 years after the end of WWII, but that's stretching. When in
> doubt, I always ask.
So far, so good.
>
> Unfortunately, not yet having retired, I've got a couple of projects to
> work on today.
You ASSUMED incorrectly that someone who has "retired" from academia
(out of DISGUST of those who sold their souls to the Devil) do not
have (more important than yours) projects to work on today. ;-)
> Whatever else these data are, they are short time
> series. I'm not sure how Bob is proposing we deal with them. Are we to
> "pretend" they are 32 iidrvs as though it were a typical multiple
> regression problem?
Yes, for the EXERCISE, as I had indicated in my reply to Russel,
on the same post you are following-up on, because it was done in
SPSS as a Multiple Regression example.
> The pre-1950 data make me especially anxious about
> that approach. Take a look at what's going on in the scatterplots pre-1950.
> http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/invdex.jpg
> http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/3d.jpg
It's all deja vu. :-) But you are GIVEN a dataset to FIT a
regression model, to predict INVDEX. The question is "what CAN
you do" and not "how much can I complain" about the given DATA,
which are (reasonably) assumed to be CORRECT.
>
> I'll try to get back to this tonight, although I suspect others will
> pick the data apart long before then.
Don't bother to pick the DATA apart. Do some DATA fitting, using
MODEL BUILDING methods, with the data as given.
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
doing :-) and while it may look like I have nothing else to do,
I'm trying to stomp out bugs in a computer program by day
and renovate my house by night, so I'll just have to kibitz
about typos.
Cheers,
Russell
Jerry Dallal
>
> Jerry Dallal wrote:
>
>>Whatever else these data are, they are short time
>>series. I'm not sure how Bob is proposing we deal with them. Are we to
>>"pretend" they are 32 iidrvs as though it were a typical multiple
>>regression problem?
>
>
> Yes, for the EXERCISE, as I had indicated in my reply to Russel,
> on the same post you are following-up on, because it was done in
> SPSS as a Multiple Regression example.
>
In that case, better to label the variables A,B,C,D,... especially when
the requested analysis might not be appropriate given the labels. Just
because SPSS analyzed the data by using multiple regression doesn't mean
that such an analysis is the right way to go. Is YEAR one of the
predictors? Then, I'll be ready to do some model building.
Reef Fish
Jerry Dallal wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Dallal wrote:
> >
> >>Whatever else these data are, they are short time
> >>series. I'm not sure how Bob is proposing we deal with them. Are we to
> >>"pretend" they are 32 iidrvs as though it were a typical multiple
> >>regression problem?
> >
> >
> > Yes, for the EXERCISE, as I had indicated in my reply to Russel,
> > on the same post you are following-up on, because it was done in
> > SPSS as a Multiple Regression example.
> >
>
> In that case, better to label the variables A,B,C,D,... especially when
> the requested analysis might not be appropriate given the labels.
You may, if you wish. But the labels were in SPSS's example and the
data do come from those labels.
> Just
> because SPSS analyzed the data by using multiple regression doesn't mean
> that such an analysis is the right way to go.
That's certainly correct. After the model-fitting EXERCISE, I'll
be more than happy to discuss WHY the SPSS type of regression
analysis is NOT the right way to go -- no ifs or buts about it.
But it certainly furnishes a nice example of DATA to a regression
EXERCISE, to contrast what SPSS didn't do right! We have already
found ONE -- that whoever did the example for the SPSS Manual,
certainly did not EXAMINE the data.
There are many more generic LESSONS to come, in model-building
relative to regression analyses.
> Is YEAR one of the
> predictors? Then, I'll be ready to do some model building.
That's part of the INFO (auxiliary) given in SPSS. I am giving
everyone the FULL DISCLOSURE. You can use it (or not use it) in
WHATEVER way you deem appropriate. :-) It was NOT used in
the SPSS example either as a predictor or auxiliary information.
That's all PART of the ocnsideration in ANY Data Analysis project!
-- Bob.
Jerry Dallal
linear regression equation (no interactions, no transformations) gives
an RMS of 622. Using GNP alone, a linear-linear spline with a knot at
13770 gives an RMS of 335.
Reef Fish
Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> If you're grading me I'd actually want to think about what I'm
> doing :-)
That's tacitly assumed to be true of ANY data analyst worth
even a little bit of salt, whether he is graded by the Fish
University or not. :-)
> and while it may look like I have nothing else to do,
> I'm trying to stomp out bugs in a computer program by day
> and renovate my house by night, so I'll just have to kibitz
> about typos.
Forget about the typos. See my further remarks (latest, right
before this post) to Jerry Dallal about how to view the data
as GIVEN, and use any or all INFO given in the SPSS Manual in
the model-building EXERCISE, just as a discussion of what
SPSS (or anyone looking at that data from SPSS in a multiple
regression) SHOULD have done.
BTW, except for the "F"s, I wouldn't be so insensitive or
presumptious to give letter grades to others.
So, nearly everyone is SAFE in that regard. I hope EVERYONE
who seriously tried to do some model building of this data
as an EXERCISE will learn some valuable LESSONS that may not
have occured to them before.
Some of what *I* have to say can only be found in *MY* Data
Analysis Lecture Notes -- that anyone will be welcome to
criticize or challenge. So, I am EXPOSING myself to GRADES
or attacks given by all the Quacks and Malpractioners (they
wouldn't know enough to contribute anything), AS WELL AS
(and more likely) challenges by those who are competent
on the subject of model-fitting in regression analysis, with
real DATA (what SOME in this ng may have never seen. LOL)
-- Bob.
bdmccu...@drexel.edu
trending, and probably have unit roots. That suggests
"spurious regression". To analyze these data, therefore,
we'll have to see whether any of the variables are cointegrated
(what Granger won his Nobel for in 2003). If so, they
will have to be analyzed via cointegration or error-correction
methods and, if not, will have to be differenced to avoid
spurious regression.
Art Kendall
verify) or (enter and proofread) data whenever it is possible.
Art
A...@DrKendall.org
Social Research Consultants
University Park, MD USA
(301) 864-5570
Reef Fish
bdmccu...@drexel.edu wrote:
> Without even graphing the data, I can see that they are time
> trending, and probably have unit roots. That suggests
> "spurious regression". To analyze these data, therefore,
> we'll have to see whether any of the variables are cointegrated
> (what Granger won his Nobel for in 2003).
Granger won his Nobel for 2003 on THAT?
I know the Economics Nobel has really been scratching the bottom
of the barrel for winners, but if that's what Granger won his
Nobel price, they could have given me the Nobel prize 30 years
ago. :-)
I take it back!! They (the Nobel Committee) COULDN'T because
Nobel (for his wife's "affair" with a mathematician) had made
sure than no mathematician or statistician could win a Nobel
Prize (for the lack of such a category).
> If so, they
> will have to be analyzed via cointegration or error-correction
> methods and, if not, will have to be differenced to avoid
> spurious regression.
Your comment about spurious correlation on time series is a
WELL KNOWN fact, but a good one to point out. It'll come into
play in subsequent LESSONS that go with this EXERCISE.
But a Nobel prize? You jest! That's KID STUFF, for ANY
applied statistician who knows anything about data anslysis.
Thanks for your commment all the same. The Nobel mention was
definitely grossly exaggerated. :-)
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
"for methods of analyzing economic time series with common
trends (cointegration)"
Don't get me started on the Nobel Prize for Economics...
Cheers,
Russell
Torkel Franzen
> I take it back!! They (the Nobel Committee) COULDN'T because
There is no "Nobel Committee"
> Nobel (for his wife's "affair" with a mathematician) had made
Nobel never married.
Russell...@wdn.com
the website lists the prize as "The Bank of Sweden Prize
in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel".
Economic *Sciences*! That's an oxymoron given the
way economics is presently practiced in far too many
cases. OTOH the Voodoo Economics of the Reagan
administration was tautological. Usually I have 12 months
to get over my aggravation over the previous prize, but
now I have this intervening aggravation. The Bank of
Sweden couldn't think of anything better to do with its
money?!
Cheers,
Russell
Reef Fish
Torkel Franzen wrote:
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > I take it back!! They (the Nobel Committee) COULDN'T because
>
> There is no "Nobel Committee"
There are certainly Nobel award committees. You think they came
from random drawing as in the Reader's Digest sweepstakes? :-)
>
> > Nobel (for his wife's "affair" with a mathematician) had made
>
> Nobel never married.
That may explain it. It must've been Nobel's "wife to be" who
ran away with a mathematician instead of marrying him.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
Come on, Russell, start on it. :-)
Always interested in hearing others' versions about it. Nothing
personally against any of the Nobel Prize winners in Economics.
Several of them are even people I know personally. These
include about half a dozen of my former colleagues at the
University of Chicago.
But the Prize itself and its recent selections were a joke!
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> There are certainly Nobel award committees. You think they came
> from random drawing as in the Reader's Digest sweepstakes? :-)
The prizes are awarded by different bodies.
> That may explain it. It must've been Nobel's "wife to be" who
> ran away with a mathematician instead of marrying him.
The whole story is pure invention.
Reef Fish
If I haven't overlooked any posts of substance in this thread, over
6 hours past since your post and no one had offered any tentative
or definitive fitting model.
Let's just say you're on the GENERAL right track.
You can't eat RMS and you can't drink it.
Here's a suggestion for you (or anyone else) to try -- to get a
taste of PRACTICAL significance vs STATISTICAL significance, and
get a Reality Check of how your or any other fitted model fare,
in prediction.
HOLD OUT the data for 1966.
Use the data prior to 1966 to build the fitting/predicting model.
Now get a Prediction Interval for the INVDEX for 1966 with the
value(s) of the predictor variables for that same year to
assess how well (or how badly) it did.
You may also devise some kind of non-standard and non-textbook
measure for predictive performance, such as the average width
of prediction intervals for several rows of data close to the
row to be predicted.
I am looking forward to SOME actual models, their statistical
results and significance measures, as well as some comments
and discussion about how the model was arrived at, and how
they perform.
-- Bob.
Anon.
>
> bdmccu...@drexel.edu wrote:
>
>>Without even graphing the data, I can see that they are time
>>trending, and probably have unit roots. That suggests
>>"spurious regression". To analyze these data, therefore,
>>we'll have to see whether any of the variables are cointegrated
>>(what Granger won his Nobel for in 2003).
>
>
> Granger won his Nobel for 2003 on THAT?
>
> I know the Economics Nobel has really been scratching the bottom
> of the barrel for winners, but if that's what Granger won his
> Nobel price, they could have given me the Nobel prize 30 years
> ago. :-)
>
> I take it back!! They (the Nobel Committee) COULDN'T because
> Nobel (for his wife's "affair" with a mathematician) had made
> sure than no mathematician or statistician could win a Nobel
> Prize (for the lack of such a category).
>
first awarded in 1969. It's actually called "The Bank of Sweden Prize
Source: http://nobelprize.org/economics/
Bob
Russell...@wdn.com
True, as I pointed that out earlier, but it is popularly known
as "the Nobel Prize in Economics" (at least in the U.S.), as
when the news anchor on TV says, "The Nobel Prize in Economics
was awarded today to an economist for a piece of work that
bears no relation to reality." (OK, they don't really say the
last part, but IMO in most cases they should. True, all models
are wrong, some are useful. But in economics more are wrong in
more ways and less useful than in just about any "science" with
which I am familiar.) Another example of the bias of the
liberal media distorting the truth, I guess. ;-)
Cheers,
Russell
Torkel Franzen
> (OK, they don't really say the
> last part, but IMO in most cases they should. True, all models
> are wrong, some are useful. But in economics more are wrong in
> more ways and less useful than in just about any "science" with
> which I am familiar.)
In Sweden, it has been argued that the association of the economics
prize with the name of Nobel is unfortunate, and can be expected to
devalue the proper Nobel prizes.
Russell...@wdn.com
Cheers,
Russell
G Robin Edwards
Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> On June 19, Robin Edwards wrote, regarding a data set in SPSS
> I discussed, involving "model building",
Many thanks for providing this data set, Bob. Seems like I started
quite a hare with my simple request!
I have snipped all the comments, the data and everything. It has been
much repeated in the other postings.
As I wrote a few days ago I have had a first look at the data, and I
kept a log of my operations. I should point out that I deliberately
avoided reading any replies to Bob's post before doing anything with
the data. My journal, below, thus knows nothing of all the words
posted after RF's data arrived. I've now read the ones I downloaded
yesterday evening (27 June). As I write it is Tuesday evening, 28
June, and I have not downloaded anything today.
Here's my journal:-
*********************************
Data provided by Bob on 27 June 05
I shall look at this before reading others' posts.
1. Scan (eyeball) the data. No missing values. Good! Clearly time
series, so could mean trouble.
2 Notice that it is reminiscent of the famous Longley data set.
3 Import into 1st (my stats software).
4 Run naive multiple regression. Note that the software produces a
warning message. "Very possibly correlated independent variables.
Check regression diagnostics." Thus viewed the inital run as of
doubtful value.
5 So, computed regression diagnostics. Warnings about very high
multiple correlation coeffs and the equivalent variance inflation
factors. GNP and C.PROF have VIFs of 14.3 and 12.2, so one of them is
effectively redundant as a potential predictor. C.DIVD has VIF of 3.64
in this company. Note that Row 26 is a highly influential point ("HAT"
value 2.14, with next highest 1.199). Looks like an "outlier".
6 Look at Row 26. Ha ha! There it is. 15849. Clearly a typo.
Should be 25849.
7 Repair data set.
8 Repeat operations with new data. Similar (but of course different)
diagnostics on VIFs. Row 26 is no longer influential. The most
influential points are 31 and 32.
9 Look at INVDEX as a time series by Cusum plot. Noted possible steps
at 1950, 1954, 1960 and possibly 1963.
10 Generate multi-plot of all four variables plus Year (10 plots on
one diagram). This shows clearly that the predictor most likely to be
useful as a model for INVDEX is C.DIVD. The other two (closely similar
as noted in
the regression diagnostics) have a "hook", or, dare I say it, a hockey
stick, shape when INVDEX is plotted against them. Year gives a similar
but less angular plot.
11 Try a regression of INVDEX on C.DIVD. Produces adj R-Sq 0.8736, t
value for C.DIV 14.65
Forecast for 337.75 (Mean of C.DIV) of 176.9, L and U 95% interval for
a further single point is
94.46 to 259.4. For C.DIV = 700 (a reasonable extrapolation) values
are 400.8, 494.3 and 587.9. The regression plot looks fine.
12 Try a regression with C.DIV and GNP. Adj R-Sq 0.93585 - looks
good! But is it? Forecast value for mean of GNP and C.DIVD gives
118.2, 176.9 and 235.7, noticeably better than the simple regrn.
Now try C.DIVD 700 with GNP at its mean of 19314. Values are 262.86
(lower 95%), forecast 348.7 and upper 95% 434.6. These are nonsense!
No doubt the reason is the very high multiple correlations,
of which I've had warnings. Haven't tried C.Prof, but the result will
be almost exactly like the model with GNP in it. Good results very
close to the mean values and meaningless forecasts elsewhere.
13 My current choice for the best model is just
INVDEX = -119 + 0.87621*C.DIVD.
I'll do a bit more thinking about this, but can't hold out much hope of
an improvement. Maybe inspiration or advice will come from someone.
I'll post this and then have a look at all the other contributions, to
see where I've gone wrong.
**************************
That's what I wrote as I went along with the analyses earlier this
evening.
So, you can start shooting.
I should point out that I'm not a statistician - a mere long retired
industrial chemist, who came across stats via the experiment design
route, in 1956, from a book by Brownlee "Industrial Experimentation"
which was written to help industry during WW2. Looked dry as dust -
especially to someone who is no natural mathematician, but I liked the
notions of ANOVA and fractional factorials. Thought they might save me
some work!
I've looked at the original postings - very interesting!
Now to send this and download all the newer postings.
Cheers, Robin
Reef Fish
G Robin Edwards wrote:
> In article <1119851864.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On June 19, Robin Edwards wrote, regarding a data set in SPSS
> > I discussed, involving "model building",
>
> Many thanks for providing this data set, Bob. Seems like I started
> quite a hare with my simple request!
>
> I have snipped all the comments, the data and everything. It has been
> much repeated in the other postings.
>
> As I wrote a few days ago I have had a first look at the data, and I
> kept a log of my operations. I should point out that I deliberately
> avoided reading any replies to Bob's post before doing anything with
> the data.
Excellent!!
i was somewhat worried about the unfair influence (good or bad) by
others. I tried to refrain from saying much, but what others had
about what they found is hard to ignore unless you don't read them.
> My journal, below, thus knows nothing of all the words
> posted after RF's data arrived. I've now read the ones I downloaded
> yesterday evening (27 June). As I write it is Tuesday evening, 28
> June, and I have not downloaded anything today.
Nothing happened to day (in non time-series) except your post now.
I'll withold comments until I get something more from Jerry Dallal
(I hope he'll find time to add more to what he had already done)
and anyone else.
>
> Here's my journal:-
>
> *********************************
>
> Data provided by Bob on 27 June 05
>
> I shall look at this before reading others' posts.
>
> 1. Scan (eyeball) the data. No missing values. Good! Clearly time
> series, so could mean trouble.
Both good observations.
>
> 2 Notice that it is reminiscent of the famous Longley data set.
Not in the multicollinearity sense. BTW, here's a "side lesson":
Highly correlated independent variables (such as r > .9) does
not NECESSARILY imply collinearity problems. On the other
hand you MAY have a singular correlation matrix even if ALL
of the pairwise correlations are < .2 say.
>
> 3 Import into 1st (my stats software).
>
> 4 Run naive multiple regression. Note that the software produces a
> warning message. "Very possibly correlated independent variables.
> Check regression diagnostics." Thus viewed the inital run as of
> doubtful value.
See my "side lesson" above. You PROGRAM may be issuing FALSE to
MISLEADING warnings. ANOTHER abuse of the "correlation coeff". :-)
The software must examine the EIGENVALUES of X'X to correctly
detect multicollinearity conditions/problems!!
I'll stop my comments here. Will resume with the rest of your
analysis/results at the conclusion of the Million $ Challenge. :-)
Thanks for your effort and interest. I think almost everyone
will learn SOMETHING from it. The misunderstanding of the
detection and effects of multicollinearity ranks among the
highest "regression abuses" I know (next to the "expected
sign" fallacy).
Stay tuned under the LESSON 2 thread.
-- Bob.
Jerry Dallal
inappropriate analysis, so I'll stop with
invdex = 181.9 - 0.016 gnp +
+ 0.028 I(gnp>=13770)*(gnp-13770)
+ 0.114 cprof + 56.7 I(year=1961)
where I(x)=1 if x is true and 0 otherwise
ResMS = 203.5
Unless I've made a typo transcribing. The ResMS is correct, though.
The residual plot gives the impression that the variability is larger
for larger predicted values.
Reef Fish
It doesn't appear there'll be any more entries. I suspect Jerry
is either too busy or his knot and spline software has a feature
for him to get prediction intervals or PRACTICAL significance
assessments.
So, I'll going ahead and finish commenting on your analysis here,
then continue my "lessons" without Jerry. He can always do more
after I show what I did (30 year ago) which was a better fit than
his.
>
> > 5 So, computed regression diagnostics. Warnings about very high
> > multiple correlation coeffs and the equivalent variance inflation
> > factors. GNP and C.PROF have VIFs of 14.3 and 12.2, so one of them is
> > effectively redundant as a potential predictor. C.DIVD has VIF of 3.64
> > in this company. Note that Row 26 is a highly influential point ("HAT"
> > value 2.14, with next highest 1.199). Looks like an "outlier".
> >
> > 6 Look at Row 26. Ha ha! There it is. 15849. Clearly a typo.
> > Should be 25849.
> >
> > 7 Repair data set.
You were a bit late here. I had corrected that value at about 10 am
the same morning I posted the original data at 1:59 am. So, you must
have stopped looking as soon as you saw my original data.
In any event data examination and graphical displays should have
been done first, before doing any computation such as correlations.
> >
> > 8 Repeat operations with new data. Similar (but of course different)
> > diagnostics on VIFs. Row 26 is no longer influential. The most
> > influential points are 31 and 32.
If you had done some scatter plots of INVDEX vs the other variables,
you would have notice the obvious "elbow" Jerry found, and the same
elbow AUTOBOX found using time-series methods. See LESSON 2 for
details.
> >
> > 9 Look at INVDEX as a time series by Cusum plot. Noted possible steps
> > at 1950, 1954, 1960 and possibly 1963.
> >
> > 10 Generate multi-plot of all four variables plus Year (10 plots on
> > one diagram). This shows clearly that the predictor most likely to be
> > useful as a model for INVDEX is C.DIVD. The other two (closely similar
> > as noted in
> > the regression diagnostics) have a "hook", or, dare I say it, a hockey
> > stick, shape when INVDEX is plotted against them. Year gives a similar
> > but less angular plot.
Ah, you DID notice the "hockey stick" which I called the "elbow", but
you let the golden goose walk by and grabbed the quacking duck
instead! :-) Again, see my continuation of LESSON 2.
> >
> > 11 Try a regression of INVDEX on C.DIVD. Produces adj R-Sq 0.8736, t
> > value for C.DIV 14.65
> > Forecast for 337.75 (Mean of C.DIV) of 176.9, L and U 95% interval for
> > a further single point is
> > 94.46 to 259.4. For C.DIV = 700 (a reasonable extrapolation) values
> > are 400.8, 494.3 and 587.9. The regression plot looks fine.
> >
> > 12 Try a regression with C.DIV and GNP. Adj R-Sq 0.93585 - looks
> > good! But is it? Forecast value for mean of GNP and C.DIVD gives
> > 118.2, 176.9 and 235.7, noticeably better than the simple regrn.
> > Now try C.DIVD 700 with GNP at its mean of 19314. Values are 262.86
> > (lower 95%), forecast 348.7 and upper 95% 434.6. These are nonsense!
> > No doubt the reason is the very high multiple correlations,
> > of which I've had warnings. Haven't tried C.Prof, but the result will
> > be almost exactly like the model with GNP in it. Good results very
> > close to the mean values and meaningless forecasts elsewhere.
These are nice exploratory steps. Unfortunately, you did not take
advantage of the "golden goose" and ended with this model:
> >
> > 13 My current choice for the best model is just
> >
> > INVDEX = -119 + 0.87621*C.DIVD.
This was based on all 32 observations, and would have yield a
MSE of 1582, which is almost 5 times the MSE (or RMS) of 335 Jerry
got with GNP alone as the predictor, which was also about HALF the
RMS of 622 of the SPSS-like multiple regression model with the
kitchen sink thrown in.
> >
> > I'll do a bit more thinking about this, but can't hold out much hope of
> > an improvement. Maybe inspiration or advice will come from someone.
> >
> > I'll post this and then have a look at all the other contributions, to
> > see where I've gone wrong.
> >
> > **************************
> >
> > That's what I wrote as I went along with the analyses earlier this
> > evening.
Very nicely document. Helped others see your thought process as well
as where and how you missed the boat, so to speak, when you read my
LESSON 2.
> >
> > So, you can start shooting.
Sorry, the golden goose already walked away. :-)
> >
> > I should point out that I'm not a statistician - a mere long retired
> > industrial chemist, who came across stats via the experiment design
You certainly showed much better insight and thoughtfulness in your
exploratory step than MOST "applied statisticians" would have done,
sort of like the SPSS Manual example -- "Garbage IN, Garbage Out".
They might even get busy discussing whether the SIGN of one of the
coefficient is right or not. :-)
> > route, in 1956, from a book by Brownlee "Industrial Experimentation"
> > which was written to help industry during WW2. Looked dry as dust -
> > especially to someone who is no natural mathematician, but I liked the
> > notions of ANOVA and fractional factorials. Thought they might save me
> > some work!
> >
> > I've looked at the original postings - very interesting!
> >
> > Now to send this and download all the newer postings.
> >
> > Cheers, Robin
Data analysis and model-building are things that always have UNIQUE
features in every data set, and only those trained to look out for
them and take advantage of any "golden goose" they see during the
iterative process can consistently do well.
Thanks to you voluntary participation (at the risk of being shot),
I believe you've contributed more than you realized, to help OTHERS
think more about what THEY might do, the next time they get hold
of ANY multiple regression data set, that life is much more
interesting and fruitful than just throwing all the variables into
a large scale model, and look only at correlations and coefficient
signs.
Now you, or any reader who is following this EXERCISE, may continue
reading my continuation of the LESSON 2 thread, on this same data set.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
Jerry Dallal wrote:
> Given that this is a time series, it's hard to get worked up about an
> inappropriate analysis, so I'll stop with
>
> invdex = 181.9 - 0.016 gnp +
> + 0.028 I(gnp>=13770)*(gnp-13770)
> + 0.114 cprof + 56.7 I(year=1961)
> where I(x)=1 if x is true and 0 otherwise
>
> ResMS = 203.5
I was about to give up on you (when I was typing my follow-up to
Robin's post in this thread).
>
> Unless I've made a typo transcribing. The ResMS is correct, though.
>
> The residual plot gives the impression that the variability is larger
> for larger predicted values.
Now I have to take a look at your model before continuing with the
LESSON 2 thread. Meanwhile, if it's not time consuming, you may
want to give a PREDICTION interval for the held-out last row of
data (1966) pretending that you're trying to predict the INDVEX
fot that year using your model and the GNP value of 35822 for that
year.
-- Bob.
Reef Fish
Jerry Dallal wrote:
> Given that this is a time series, it's hard to get worked up about an
> inappropriate analysis, so I'll stop with
>
> invdex = 181.9 - 0.016 gnp +
> + 0.028 I(gnp>=13770)*(gnp-13770)
> + 0.114 cprof + 56.7 I(year=1961)
> where I(x)=1 if x is true and 0 otherwise
>
> ResMS = 203.5
It didn't take long for me to have absorbed all your wisdom above.
So, I'll interpret it for the readers, comment on it, and will be
ready to finish LESSON 2, and later lessons right after this.
I can't resist my mock horror, "But your SIGN of GNP is WRONG,
Jerry !!!!! How can you EXPLAIN to anyone that the INVDEX will
drop when the GNP value RISES?" :-)
Multiple Regression "expected sign" abusers take note!
Your model is basically taking advantage of the "hockey plug" in
GNP vs year (which you took the "elbow" to be between 1941 and
1942, estimating the "knot" point to be 13770 for GNP. You used
CPROF as the 2nd indep. variable, and then you saved a bundle of
SSE by adjusting for ONE value of the fitted function at 1961,
to drop the residual from 56.7 to 0 (I presume), thus lowering
the SSE by 56.7^2 or a rather substantial 3,214.89. :-)
That's why your RMS is so much smaller than your previous 335.
I consider that "cheating" (in a non-criminal way <G>) because if
you play that game by setting residuals to 0 at will, you can
drop the RMS even further, but the model will hardly be a good
or valid one for prediction purposes. It's more like OVER-FITTING.
Let's move over to the continuation of the LESSON 2 thread.
-- Bob.
Jerry Dallal
>
> Jerry Dallal wrote:
>
>>Given that this is a time series, it's hard to get worked up about an
>>inappropriate analysis, so I'll stop with
>>
>>invdex = 181.9 - 0.016 gnp +
>> + 0.028 I(gnp>=13770)*(gnp-13770)
>> + 0.114 cprof + 56.7 I(year=1961)
>> where I(x)=1 if x is true and 0 otherwise
>>
>>ResMS = 203.5
>
>
> It didn't take long for me to have absorbed all your wisdom above.
> So, I'll interpret it for the readers, comment on it, and will be
> ready to finish LESSON 2, and later lessons right after this.
>
> I can't resist my mock horror, "But your SIGN of GNP is WRONG,
> Jerry !!!!! How can you EXPLAIN to anyone that the INVDEX will
> drop when the GNP value RISES?" :-)
That's easy. It's a corollary to "Never interpret main effects in the
presence of an interaction!"
Even more shocking is the decision to constrain the first part of the
spline to be horizontal!
[copied from another post in the same thread. Quotation from Reef Fish:
"Then it occurred to me that it made sense for the relation to be
nearly horizontal during the WWII era and then both variables
were growing strong in a linear fit in the post-war years."]
*Forcing* the sign?!?! The HORROR! :-)
> Multiple Regression "expected sign" abusers take note!
Indeed!
>
> Your model is basically taking advantage of the "hockey plug" in
> GNP vs year (which you took the "elbow" to be between 1941 and
> 1942, estimating the "knot" point to be 13770 for GNP. You used
> CPROF as the 2nd indep. variable, and then you saved a bundle of
> SSE by adjusting for ONE value of the fitted function at 1961,
> to drop the residual from 56.7 to 0 (I presume), thus lowering
> the SSE by 56.7^2 or a rather substantial 3,214.89. :-)
>
> That's why your RMS is so much smaller than your previous 335.
> I consider that "cheating" (in a non-criminal way <G>) because if
> you play that game by setting residuals to 0 at will, you can
> drop the RMS even further, but the model will hardly be a good
> or valid one for prediction purposes. It's more like OVER-FITTING.
RSS, yes, RMS, not necessarily. In any analysis I do, 1961 is an
outlier. If year 'x' isn't squirrelly, the contribution of I(x) will be
negligible. Fitting I(x) is equivalent to setting an observation aside
based on its externally Studentized residual. Granted, probability
theory guarantees that there be some large externally Studentized
residual, but the one for 1961 is huge. I(1961) has a t statistic of
3.74 and an observed significance level of 0.00091, which survives even
a Bonferroni adjustment, (32*0.00091=0.02912). While this might be
overfitting for data from biological units, these are US national level
economic data. 1961 sticks out like a sore thumb.
G Robin Edwards
Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
Does this apply to multiple correlations? All I'm trying to do is to
make reasonably sure that the data do not suffer from the effects of
multi-colinearity. Thus a "warning" is issued if the software thinks
there's a possibility of strong multiple correlation, something that I
think might be not noticed in pairwise plots in some cases.
> >
> > The software must examine the EIGENVALUES of X'X to correctly
> > detect multicollinearity conditions/problems!!
Can you explain to me how this approach might relate (if at all) to
computing Cholesky inverse roots? I wrote this software in about 1977
to run on a Commodore PET (32K memory for programs and data) and I
can't remember the details of the technique, or even why I thought it
might be useful :-(
You must remember that I do not have broadband. I switch on my machine
once each evening, and download at about 4k characters/second. I'm on
line for perhaps 2 - 4 minutes, so it is far from real time!
> In any event data examination and graphical displays should have been
> done first, before doing any computation such as correlations.
> > >
> > > 8 Repeat operations with new data. Similar (but of course
> > > different) diagnostics on VIFs. Row 26 is no longer influential.
> > > The most influential points are 31 and 32.
> If you had done some scatter plots of INVDEX vs the other variables,
> you would have notice the obvious "elbow" Jerry found, and the same
> elbow AUTOBOX found using time-series methods. See LESSON 2 for
> details.
> > >
> > > 9 Look at INVDEX as a time series by Cusum plot. Noted possible
> > > steps at 1950, 1954, 1960 and possibly 1963.
> > >
> > > 10 Generate multi-plot of all four variables plus Year (10 plots
> > > on one diagram). This shows clearly that the predictor most
> > > likely to be useful as a model for INVDEX is C.DIVD. The other
> > > two (closely similar as noted in the regression diagnostics) have
> > > a "hook", or, dare I say it, a hockey stick, shape when INVDEX is
> > > plotted against them. Year gives a similar but less angular plot.
> Ah, you DID notice the "hockey stick" which I called the "elbow", but
> you let the golden goose walk by and grabbed the quacking duck
> instead! :-) Again, see my continuation of LESSON 2.
I always plot data in various ways :-) But running linear regressions
is such a simple step - (specifying a model takes moments and the
calculations a second or so for ordinary size data sets) that it might
as well be done. One never knows what might turn up.
> > >
> > > 11 Try a regression of INVDEX on C.DIVD. Produces adj R-Sq
> > > 0.8736, t value for C.DIV 14.65 Forecast for 337.75 (Mean of
> > > C.DIV) of 176.9, L and U 95% interval for a further single point
> > > is 94.46 to 259.4. For C.DIV = 700 (a reasonable extrapolation)
> > > values are 400.8, 494.3 and 587.9. The regression plot looks
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > 12 Try a regression with C.DIV and GNP. Adj R-Sq 0.93585 -
> > > looks good! But is it? Forecast value for mean of GNP and
> > > C.DIVD gives 118.2, 176.9 and 235.7, noticeably better than the
> > > simple regrn. Now try C.DIVD 700 with GNP at its mean of 19314.
> > > Values are 262.86 (lower 95%), forecast 348.7 and upper 95%
> > > 434.6. These are nonsense! No doubt the reason is the very high
> > > multiple correlations, of which I've had warnings. Haven't tried
> > > C.Prof, but the result will be almost exactly like the model with
> > > GNP in it. Good results very close to the mean values and
> > > meaningless forecasts elsewhere.
> These are nice exploratory steps. Unfortunately, you did not take
> advantage of the "golden goose" and ended with this model:
> > >
> > > 13 My current choice for the best model is just
> > >
> > > INVDEX = -119 + 0.87621*C.DIVD.
> This was based on all 32 observations, and would have yield a
> MSE of 1582,
Agreed
> which is almost 5 times the MSE (or RMS) of 335 Jerry
> got with GNP alone as the predictor, which was also about HALF the
> RMS of 622 of the SPSS-like multiple regression model with the
> kitchen sink thrown in.
Also agreed
I look forward to Lesson 2.
However, I worry a bit about inferential statistics when the fitted
model has been arrived at by a stepwise programme driven by the outcome
of preliminary analyses which lead to modification of the originally
proposed model. I had always thought that technical specification of
the model should precede any analytical work. Is this correct?
Reef Fish
Jerry Dallal wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
> >
> > Jerry Dallal wrote:
> >
> >>Given that this is a time series, it's hard to get worked up about an
> >>inappropriate analysis, so I'll stop with
> >>
> >>invdex = 181.9 - 0.016 gnp +
> >> + 0.028 I(gnp>=13770)*(gnp-13770)
> >> + 0.114 cprof + 56.7 I(year=1961)
> >> where I(x)=1 if x is true and 0 otherwise
> >>
> >>ResMS = 203.5
> >
> >
> > It didn't take long for me to have absorbed all your wisdom above.
> > So, I'll interpret it for the readers, comment on it, and will be
> > ready to finish LESSON 2, and later lessons right after this.
> >
> > I can't resist my mock horror, "But your SIGN of GNP is WRONG,
> > Jerry !!!!! How can you EXPLAIN to anyone that the INVDEX will
> > drop when the GNP value RISES?" :-)
>
> That's easy. It's a corollary to "Never interpret main effects in the
> presence of an interaction!"
For the sake of not getting off the present topic, I'll leave your
statement alone, though it didn't quite technically or precisely
apply to the example in question. :)
> Even more shocking is the decision to constrain the first part of the
> spline to be horizontal!
>
> [copied from another post in the same thread. Quotation from Reef Fish:
> "Then it occurred to me that it made sense for the relation to be
> nearly horizontal during the WWII era and then both variables
> were growing strong in a linear fit in the post-war years."]
>
> *Forcing* the sign?!?! The HORROR! :-)
Actually that's not quite in MY case; perhaps more in YOURS, for
forcing a horizontal spline.
In MY case, I was merely THROWING away historical data that are
justifiable to be thrown away (BTW, deleted ANY observation, let
alone more than 1, is a serious business that MUST be justified
other than "it didn't fit") because it made economic as well as
commonsense that there are two different relations in pre-war/war
and post-war eras. And even if it DIDN'T make any strong sense,
it made sense (in such a time series) to discard data in a
DISTANT past, when the object is to predict the most recent
present.
>
> > Multiple Regression "expected sign" abusers take note!
>
> Indeed!
>
> >
> > Your model is basically taking advantage of the "hockey plug" in
> > GNP vs year (which you took the "elbow" to be between 1941 and
> > 1942, estimating the "knot" point to be 13770 for GNP. You used
> > CPROF as the 2nd indep. variable, and then you saved a bundle of
> > SSE by adjusting for ONE value of the fitted function at 1961,
> > to drop the residual from 56.7 to 0 (I presume), thus lowering
> > the SSE by 56.7^2 or a rather substantial 3,214.89. :-)
> >
> > That's why your RMS is so much smaller than your previous 335.
> > I consider that "cheating" (in a non-criminal way <G>) because if
> > you play that game by setting residuals to 0 at will, you can
> > drop the RMS even further, but the model will hardly be a good
> > or valid one for prediction purposes. It's more like OVER-FITTING.
>
> RSS, yes, RMS, not necessarily.
NOW we can get down to some concrete discussion of NUMBERS. Not
necessarily, yes. But VERY easily so.
For my argument and illustration, I'll have to do a bit of detective
work since I don't know any of your residuals except the 56.7 one.
But I can infer, from your previous result of MSE = 335 with only
the GNP, and the location of spine and knot value (on the entire 32
observations, hence 28 df?) that your SSE was 9380.
The setting of ONE residual of 56.7 to zero (and nothing else)
would have reduced the SSE to 6166 and the MSE to 228 on 27 df.
Your actual model (for which I assume 25 df, but doesn't really
matter if it's one or two more, or less) would imply SSE = 5088,
given your MSE of 203.5.
If you "fix" another residual of 30 by setting it to zero, you
would have reducedd the SSE df to 24, but reduced the MSE to 182.
"Fix" a third residual of size 30, you would have reduced the MSE
to 157! And so on.
I believe in general, the fixing of ONE unusually large residual
must be based NOT on the size of the residual, but on REASONS
you can explain on WHY it's excessively large.
There are many examples of such in the analysis of time series.
For example, the daily national total on the use of fireworks
would most likely have a peak on the 4th of July; of alcohol
consumption on special events/days of the year.
In this EXERCISE, there was nothing you attached to 1961 other
than having observed a large residual. In the grand scheme of
things, that's at least a faux pas or peccadillo. Those are
the grades James F. Kilpatrick assigned to various erroneous
usage of the English language in his nationally syndicated
columns on "crimes, misdemeanors, faux pas, and peccadillos).
I make many peccadillos everyday! :-)
> In any analysis I do, 1961 is an outlier.
But not good enough reason for "deleting" or neutralizing the
negative redisual effect for the year 1961.
> If year 'x' isn't squirrelly, the contribution of I(x) will be
> negligible. Fitting I(x) is equivalent to setting an observation aside
> based on its externally Studentized residual. Granted, probability
> theory guarantees that there be some large externally Studentized
> residual, but the one for 1961 is huge. I(1961) has a t statistic of
> 3.74 and an observed significance level of 0.00091, which survives even
> a Bonferroni adjustment, (32*0.00091=0.02912). While this might be
> overfitting for data from biological units, these are US national level
> economic data. 1961 sticks out like a sore thumb.
Now you're talking almost like a social scientist who is happen to
throw away anything that doesn't fit until what's left fit TOO well.
:-)
I prefer your previous model of having a knot and using only GNP to
result in a MSE of 335. I also prefer mine over yours for reasons
of Box's principle of "parsimony" or Occum's razor.
-- Bob.
Jerry Dallal
> When Hinkley's tests for two-phase regression are performed, the
> observed significance levels for equality of the slopes and for the
> slope of the later part of the data being 0 are <0.0001. The osl for
> the slope of the earlier data being different from 0 is 0.1552.
strike "different from" in the last line. I was stating null
hypotheses, or trying to, anyway.
Jerry Dallal
>
> I prefer your previous model of having a knot and using only GNP to
> result in a MSE of 335. I also prefer mine over yours for reasons
> of Box's principle of "parsimony" or Occum's razor.
>
> -- Bob.
>
I agree, especially about the vicious cycle of setting data aside. I
was just passing the time of day. The labels matter/they don't matter.
It's a time series/treat them as independent observations. It's the
wrong analysis/let's do it anyway. Hard to get worked up over the data
in a situation like this.
When Hinkley's tests for two-phase regression are performed, the
observed significance levels for equality of the slopes and for the
slope of the later part of the data being 0 are <0.0001. The osl for
the slope of the earlier data being different from 0 is 0.1552.
1961 was odd enough that I'd go back and check it. It's INVDEX that
appears to be odd, even when plotted against year. It's the
scatterplots more than any statistical quantity that led me to question
it. If the number is what was reported, then that's what it is.
Reef Fish
G Robin Edwards wrote:
> In article <1120016381.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
< GIGANTIC snip to get to the technical points in question >
>
Robin>> 4 Run naive multiple regression. Note that the software
> > > > produces a warning message. "Very possibly correlated
> > > > independent variables. Check regression diagnostics." Thus
> > > > viewed the inital run as of doubtful value.
> > >
> > > See my "side lesson" above. You PROGRAM may be issuing FALSE to
> > > MISLEADING warnings. ANOTHER abuse of the "correlation coeff". :-)
>
> Does this apply to multiple correlations? All I'm trying to do is to
> make reasonably sure that the data do not suffer from the effects of
> multi-colinearity. Thus a "warning" is issued if the software thinks
> there's a possibility of strong multiple correlation, something that I
> think might be not noticed in pairwise plots in some cases.
There are two separate and unrelated points here.
1. Pairwise correlations among independent variables tells NOTHING
about multicolinearity, unless one of the them is ridiculously
high, say .99999. If ALL of the pairwise correlations are less
than .2 say, you not only can have multicollinearity problems,
but the X'X matrix MAY even be "singular" or the regression
coefficients undeterminable.
2. The MULTIPLE R (or R^2) is completely different. A high R is
a GOOD thing, because it is the simple correlation between
the observed Y nd the fitted Y! The higher the R, the better
the fit.
That's why I said your SOFTWARE may have been written by someone
who doesn't know the statistical theory and issued false and/or
erroneous warnings, as indicated by your descriptions.
>
> > > The software must examine the EIGENVALUES of X'X to correctly
> > > detect multicollinearity conditions/problems!!
>
> Can you explain to me how this approach might relate (if at all) to
> computing Cholesky inverse roots? I wrote this software in about 1977
> to run on a Commodore PET (32K memory for programs and data) and I
> can't remember the details of the technique, or even why I thought it
> might be useful :-(
The Cholesky decomposition is ONE of the MANY methods of doing an
eigen-decomposition as well as for matrix inversion.
It is tangent to the statistical interpretation of the regression
results. A numerical analysis book or a book on Statistical
Computing would likely address the question much more adequately
than I can or want to do it here.
> > Now you, or any reader who is following this EXERCISE, may continue
> > reading my continuation of the LESSON 2 thread, on this same data set.
>
> I look forward to Lesson 2.
>
> However, I worry a bit about inferential statistics when the fitted
> model has been arrived at by a stepwise programme driven by the outcome
> of preliminary analyses which lead to modification of the originally
> proposed model. I had always thought that technical specification of
> the model should precede any analytical work. Is this correct?
That is essentially correct and your worry is appropriate. ANY kind
of "automatic" selection method ignores the probability model
assumptions (or its violations) and only search for the best "fit".
Stepwise type of regressoin is a cheap way to get some PLAUSIBLE
candidate models on the basis of "fit" only. Once found, the
analyst must examine the residuals as carefully as they would do
in a "manual" iterative process.
Often, the "best" fitting models have to be abandoned in favor of
worse fitting but more appropriate models from a residual analysis
point of view.
Note in LESSON 3, I indicated before I exhibited the final model,
that I had gone through all of the normality, independence and
homoscedasticity tests on the residuals.
-- Bob.
Abe Kohen
news:vcb7jge...@beta19.sm.ltu.se...
You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani, Friedman
and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
Abe
Reef Fish
Nash, if he should win anything at all, should have won it in
Mathematics. But we all know that Math and Stat were SCREWED out
of the Nobel categories. ;^)
Nash won it for being schizo AND being crazy at the right time,
when the ECON category was already running out of worthy
candidates YEARS ago, and had started the tradition of finding
excuses for giving the prize to NON-economists. Simon is
another example. There are other notable examples in recent
years.
There were MANY more qualified Mathematicians for a Nobel Prize
(the Field's medal winners, e.g., a coveted Mathematics Prize
which Nash never won), had they not be SCREWED by Nobel himself. :-)
So there!
And why didn't you mention Miller, another NON-economist, who
won it on the strength of having been Modigliani's TEACHER,
and the co-winner on the Miller-Modigliani theory. :)
Friedman? He should have won it LONG before he actually did.
His theory was directly opposed to Samuelson's, and since the
"banking committee" was obviously pro-Samuelson and anti-Friedman,
they kept him OFF the Nobel prize as long as they could, which
was already obvious to EVERYONE who knew anything about ECONOMICS
that Uncle Milty :-) should have won it, perhaps even before
Samuelson did.
Besides, Milton Friedman could have won a Nobel Prize for his
STATISTICAL work, for the years he collaborated and SUPERVISED
the likes of Fred Mosteller, Jimmie Savage, and other Nobel-
prize-deserving statisticians, in STATISTICAL anslyses, had
Statisticians not be SCREWED out of the Nobel category, because
Nobel mis-associated the field as Mathematics.
>
> IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>
> Abe
Are you throwing your hat into the ring for the Nobel Peace
Prize, (Honest) Abe? :-) If it accelerates its devaluation
rate, and you live to be a thousand-year-old man (curse to
medical science <g>), even YOU may have a SHOT at it, (Honest)
Abe.
-- Bob (NOT Hogg; NOT Anon-O'Hara) the Reef Fish.
Reef Fish
Nash, if he should win anything at all, should have won it in
So there!
>
> IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>
> Abe
Are you throwing your hat into the ring for the Nobel Peace
Reef Fish
Nash, if he should win anything at all, should have won it in
So there!
>
> IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>
> Abe
Are you throwing your hat into the ring for the Nobel Peace
Torkel Franzen
> You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani, Friedman
> and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
I know nothing about these people. The argument, as I have seen it
presented, turned not on the qualities of individual recipients, but on
the nature of the subject.
Torkel Franzen
> Statisticians not be SCREWED out of the Nobel category, because
> Nobel mis-associated the field as Mathematics.
I see that you stick with grit and determination to your tradition
of promoting your favorite fantasies!
Herman Rubin
Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Abe Kohen wrote:
>> "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
>> news:vcb7jge...@beta19.sm.ltu.se...
>> > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
>> > > (OK, they don't really say the
>> > > last part, but IMO in most cases they should. True, all models
>> > > are wrong, some are useful. But in economics more are wrong in
>> > > more ways and less useful than in just about any "science" with
>> > > which I am familiar.)
>> > In Sweden, it has been argued that the association of the economics
>> > prize with the name of Nobel is unfortunate, and can be expected to
>> > devalue the proper Nobel prizes.
>> You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani, Friedman
>> and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
>Nash, if he should win anything at all, should have won it in
>Mathematics. But we all know that Math and Stat were SCREWED out
>of the Nobel categories. ;^)
Stat was not even a topic at the time, and the story about
Math being screwed out has long been discredited.
[Much deleted; I only agree with part of it.]
>> IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>> Abe
>Are you throwing your hat into the ring for the Nobel Peace
>Prize, (Honest) Abe? :-) If it accelerates its devaluation
>rate, and you live to be a thousand-year-old man (curse to
>medical science <g>), even YOU may have a SHOT at it, (Honest)
>Abe.
Considering the people who have been awarded the Peace
Prize, and how little most of them did for peace, and in
fact how much most of them did to hinder the cause of
peace, I have to agree completely with Abe.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Reef Fish
What fantasy? About Nobel SCREWING the Mathematicians and
Statisticians?
Then how do you explain why the is NO category of Nobel Prize for
Mathematics OR Statistics? Even if you discount the recent history
of Statistics, Mathematics as a science far exceeded all the other
sciences in the history of contribution to all sciences.
Andrew Wiles and Taniyama and Shimura should have shared a Nobel
Prize, had they NOT been screwed by Nobel himself, for slaying
the Grandeset Dragon of Mathematics, Fermat's Last Theorem,
which stood unproved for 550 years until they came along!
Wiles was credited with the actual proof, but Wiles would not
have been able to prove it without the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture
which itself stood for decades unproved.
It would take some 3rd rate economist to find some trivial use
or contrived used of Fermat's Las Theorem, and THEN Wiles will be
awarded the Nobel Prize in ECONOMICS (given by the Swiss Bank <G>)
for some economic nonsense.
That's the way it'll be.
Mathematicians are SCREWED by Nobel!
But for YOUR consolation, even if Nobel gives 1000 Prizes to
mathematicians EVERY year, Torkel Franzen would not surface to
the top 100,000 within the next millenium. Trust me! :-)
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
As I wrote in another post, don't get me started...
Nash, Harsanyi, Kahneman, yes, and some others (Arrow comes to
my mind), but IMO the good work for which this prize has been
given has been mostly the highly mathematical results which have
broader interest (at least to mathematicians) and applications
beyond economics. Also good work for which the prize has been
given is the work that shows that most of economics, as it is
presently practiced by the dominant school in the subject, is
built on a foundation of sand (again Arrow comes immediately
to mind, along with Kahneman). Often the closer to empirical
the work is, the worse it is, IMO, in terms of pure scientific
value and actual scientific practice. Some of what remains
that is of value is, IMO, not of the greatest insight or
highest orginality. Even The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
said of some of Modigliani work, "The underlying idea of the
life-cycle hypothesis - that people save for their old age - is
of course not new; nor is it Modigliani's own." As young people
today would say, "No duh."
A pompous, proselytizing ass (at least IMO that's how he comes
across in the media; maybe reef fish knows him personally and
will tell us he's a prince among men, humble and lovable like
Underdog's alterego, Shoeshine Boy) like Milton Friedman
shouldn't have been given a Prize on general principle. Part
of the justification for his Prize was his work on monetary
history. I'm sorry, I didn't know history was a field of
scientific rather than scholarly pursuit. To quote the press
release from The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, "Friedman
was a pioneer in the well-founded reaction to the earlier post-
Keynesian one-sidedness." So, that justifies the radical swing
back to thinly veiled laissez-faire capitalism based on a
morality that a shark would find disquieting? I don't think so.
That's given us Enron, World Con (no, that isn't a typo, that's
deliberate :-) ), Adelphi, sweetheart after hours trading deals
in mutual funds, etc. I trace much of that back to the ideas
Friedman and his school have produced that free is good, so
freer is better, so absolutely free of restrictions (legal,
moral, or otherwise) must be best. Granted that is a perverse
and extreme position that Freidman probably doesn't endorse (at
least publicly), but IMO he was instrumental in letting that
genie out of the bottle and hasn't worked very hard (that I've
heard of, at least) to put it back in.
Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
Cheers,
Russell
Torkel Franzen
> Then how do you explain why the is NO category of Nobel Prize for
> Mathematics OR Statistics?
The matter is fully explained in the sci.math FAQ file.
Reef Fish
You're sooooooooooooooo ignorant about USENET newsgroup FAQs and
sooooooooooooooo gullible because of your own speculation.
Here are some FACTS, not FAQs.
1. ANYBODY can write a FAQ for a newsgroup. And MANY did, for
the sci.math group.
2. Alfred Nobel had a MISTRESS Freulein Hess.
3. There was no PROOF that a mathematician screwed Nobel's sex
partners.
4. ALL theories about why there is no Nobel Prize in Math are
UNPROVEN SPECULATIONS.
You believe what you wish. I believe the most credible theory is
that original about Nobel's sexapade partner was screwing around
with a mathematician, and the ABSENCE of a Nobel Prize in
Mathematics was Alfred Nobel's only way he knew for his revenge.
The other speculations did not exactly make Nobel look like a
poster boy or alter boy of a Mr. Clean. The only difference
between him and Bill Clinton is that he couldn't be President
of the USA and he was much richer than Bill. :-)
With Nobel handing out large sums MONEY that most people would
sell their souls for much less, you think the Nobel Academy
would endorse a story like the TRUE story of Nobel and his
tangle with a mathematician who master baited (TWO words, mind
you <g>) and succeeded with one of his mistresses?
Go get YOUR fantasy in your other newsgroups like alt.fantasy.math.sex
and write your FAQ about yourself there. LOL.
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> I believe the most credible theory is
> that original about Nobel's sexapade partner was screwing around
> with a mathematician,
Yes, I know that you are most attached to your fantasies. It's
harmless.
Herman Rubin
Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Torkel Franzen wrote:
>> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>> > Statisticians not be SCREWED out of the Nobel category, because
>> > Nobel mis-associated the field as Mathematics.
>> I see that you stick with grit and determination to your tradition
>> of promoting your favorite fantasies!
>What fantasy? About Nobel SCREWING the Mathematicians and
>Statisticians?
>Then how do you explain why the is NO category of Nobel Prize for
>Mathematics OR Statistics? Even if you discount the recent history
>of Statistics, Mathematics as a science far exceeded all the other
>sciences in the history of contribution to all sciences.
Is mathematics a science? There is a big debate about it.
In any case, Nobel set up the prizes to include peace, because
of his invention of dynamite. The other prizes were in the
areas he considered "most important", such as literature,
physics, chemistry, and he lumped biology and medicine together.
He was a successful inventor, not a scientist.
He probably considered mathematics a tool for science, not
a subject in itself. This was, and is, not unusual.1
Reef Fish
Don't let your admiration of Milton get overboard there, Russell.
When Milton holds his court, as in his famous money and banking
seminars at the University of Chicago, he may make ME and MY
style in these newsgroups look like I am Ghandi, Mother Teresa,
and a few saints all rolled into one.
He was known to have shot intended speaker(s) down before the
speaker could get past the title of his talk, and Milton is
usually RIGHT!
What do you want, Russell, when it comes to academic SUBSTANCE?
A humble, loveable, and kind man who welcome all Quacks with
open arms, like many of the posters in this newsgroup do, because
they don't know any better?
Friendman was a very intelligent and talented Man, in more fields
than one. He may be best known for his work in economics, but
his contribution to the Real World was far more significant than
if he had won 10 Nobel Prizes in Econ.
In the Jimmie Savage Memorial Volume, Fred Mosteller told about
the story of a long paper he and Savage wrote, for the Statistical
Research Group of Columbia. They were very pleased with their
work, which Allen Wallis gave to the executive director of the
project, Milton Friedman, then a statistician.
Friedman read it over the weekend, and as Mosteller put it,
something to the effect that hardly a line was unchanged when
they got it back, and the pages were black with corrections with
extended notes and rewriting at the back.
Mosteller and Savage carefully studied the HUNDREDS of corrections,
and held an "indignation meeting" with Friedman, of the "He can't
do this to us" kind. :-) I am now at a Hilton in a different city
from the hotel I was in last night, and I wish I have Mosteller's
exact quote (he writes as beautifully as Savage does) <when I get
home, I'll quote it>. Basically, they made a list of about 100
items to do battle with Milton, and reluctantly admitted that
Milton was usually right -- in other words, no contest, sort of
like if I played golf against Tiger Woods or bike race Lance
Armstrong.
Like it or not, Milton KNOWS what he does, and he PRACTICES what
he preaches -- in his Free Market theory -- that's the ONLY theory
of his I know, and that's where he gets my respect, besides his
ability to teach Mosteller and Savage how to WRITE, on a subject
in statistics!
< Part
> of the justification for his Prize was his work on monetary
> history. I'm sorry, I didn't know history was a field of
> scientific rather than scholarly pursuit.
I claim ignorance on the economists' monetary theories or
history, other than the characterization that if you line them
end-to-end, they point all directions.
But there is no nonsense about Friedman's Free Market Principle,
and it applies to EVERYTHING *I* do everyday!
Take those folks who complain about my style of beating up
statistical Quacks in these groups. It's the FREE MARKET. If
they don't like it, they don't have to read what I post. Folks
complain about the rising cost of air travel or how certain
airlines raised their ticket prices. It's the FREE MARKET.
They don't have to fly the particular airline, or they can take
a train, a bus, drive, or walk. It's that simple. :-)
> To quote the press
> release from The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, "Friedman
> was a pioneer in the well-founded reaction to the earlier post-
> Keynesian one-sidedness." So, that justifies the radical swing
> back to thinly veiled laissez-faire capitalism based on a
> morality that a shark would find disquieting?
I suppose that's part of Friedman's Free Market Principle in
economic laissez-faire, but in a way that's no different from
the DESIRABLE theory of the "survival of the fitting".
And don't get ME started on THAT subject. :-)
The human race is busy practicing the "survival of the UNFITTEST".
As Sagen might say, "Billionz and Billionz" are poured into
keeping the "unfit" (whether due to birth defects or illness
or accidents) alive, while the FIT suffers from NOT having
those resources to support them! Even the BIRDS know to push
their deformed or dying baby birds off the next to keep the
survival of the fittest. Enuf said.
> I don't think so.
> That's given us Enron, World Con (no, that isn't a typo, that's
> deliberate :-) ),
Hey, this is the Real World! As long as there are stupid, greedy,
and immoral folks running it (as in our EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM), don't
blame the ills on any one Man, or one THEORY, but the collective
lack of wisdom of the entire society!
>
> Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
> King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
> chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
> the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
> Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
>
> Cheers,
> Russell
Your "your" is Abe, the same (Honest) Abe I featured in a Reply on
another subject. My answer would be: Martin Luther WHO? ;^)
-- Bob.
Herman Rubin
Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
>> Abe Kohen wrote:
>> > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
>> > news:vcb7jge...@beta19.sm.ltu.se...
>> > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
....................
>> > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>> > Abe
...................
>> Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
>> King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
>> chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
>> the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
>> Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
They may be Nobel QUALITY, but not Nobel Peace Quality.
What did they accomplish for peace?
>Your "your" is Abe, the same (Honest) Abe I featured in a Reply on
>another subject. My answer would be: Martin Luther WHO? ;^)
Agreed. The Peace Prize has rarely been given for any real
accomplishments in the direction of peace, and most of those
were transient.
Reef Fish
Reef Fish wrote:
> Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> > Abe Kohen wrote:
> > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
> > > news:vcb7jge...@beta19.sm.ltu.se...
> > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
> > > >
> > >
> > > You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani, Friedman
> > > and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
> > >
> > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
> > >
> > > Abe
< snipping Russell's Economics arguments to complete a reference
I made, but did not have the SOURCE on hand, earlier >
> >
> > A pompous, proselytizing ass (at least IMO that's how he comes
> > across in the media; maybe reef fish knows him personally and
> > will tell us he's a prince among men, humble and lovable like
> > Underdog's alterego, Shoeshine Boy) like Milton Friedman
> > shouldn't have been given a Prize on general principle.
>
> Don't let your admiration of Milton get overboard there, Russell.
>
< <More snips about Milton Friedman, written by Reef Fish Bob >
>
>
> In the Jimmie Savage Memorial Volume, Fred Mosteller told about
> the story of a long paper he and Savage wrote, for the Statistical
> Research Group of Columbia. They were very pleased with their
> work, which Allen Wallis gave to the executive director of the
> project, Milton Friedman, then a statistician.
>
> Friedman read it over the weekend, and as Mosteller put it,
> something to the effect that hardly a line was unchanged when
> they got it back, and the pages were black with corrections with
> extended notes and rewriting at the back.
>
> Mosteller and Savage carefully studied the HUNDREDS of corrections,
> and held an "indignation meeting" with Friedman, of the "He can't
> do this to us" kind. :-) I am now at a Hilton in a different city
> from the hotel I was in last night, and I wish I have Mosteller's
> exact quote (he writes as beautifully as Savage does) <when I get
> home, I'll quote it>.
Here's the exact quote of Mosteller, first hand:
"The more we worked, the more we found that Friedman was occasionally,
well often, let's face it, usually right. We finally made a list of
100 or so objections to Milton's changes and went up seven flights to
do battle with him. Milton was just delighted to see us. In no time
he showed us that he was right in about 85 percent of the objections.
He gave us credit for one or two complaints, admitted that one or two
items were matters of taste, and the rest we agreed to disagree about."
"In the course of this discussion, Milton kindly explained to us that
we knew little about writing, that there were books from which we
could and should learn, and he recommended several to us."
"During the next few years there was quite a flurry of reading about
writing by both Jimmie and me. <...> Jimmie felt that Fowler (whose
MODERN ENGLISH USAGE is delightful but hard work) was a mathematician
at heart. I think it fair to say that the credit for starting Jimmie
on good writing belongs in the first instance to Milton Friedman.
In the end Jimmie developed a very special style of his own."
To ME, the above Tribute to Milton, by Fred Mosteller, a GIANT in
both Statistics and his WRITING about Statistics, on the occasion of
Jimmie Savage's (who is no Midge in Statistics or Writing himself :-))
Memorial volume, was more impressive about the man Friedman, than
his Nobel Prize in Economics -- whatever he did for it.
< snipped the remainder of my earlier post >
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
> In article <1120278499.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Reef Fish <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> >> Abe Kohen wrote:
> >> > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote in message
> >> > news:vcb7jge...@beta19.sm.ltu.se...
> >> > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
>
> ....................
>
> >> > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>
> >> > Abe
>
> ...................
>
> >> Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
> >> King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
> >> chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
> >> the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
> >> Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
>
> They may be Nobel QUALITY, but not Nobel Peace Quality.
>
> What did they accomplish for peace?
I'm afraid if you don't already realize that, no amount of
explanation on my part can enlighten you.
> >Your "your" is Abe, the same (Honest) Abe I featured in a Reply on
> >another subject. My answer would be: Martin Luther WHO? ;^)
>
> Agreed. The Peace Prize has rarely been given for any real
> accomplishments in the direction of peace, and most of those
> were transient.
I agree that the percentage of Peace Prizes that were given for
good reason is probably only slightly better than that for the
Economics Prize, which was my point. As for transience,
unfortunately peace seems to be like that, but IMO that is no
reason to not recognize the efforts.
Cheers,
Russell
Abe Kohen
> > >
> > > In Sweden, it has been argued that the association of the economics
> > > prize with the name of Nobel is unfortunate, and can be expected to
> > > devalue the proper Nobel prizes.
> >
> > You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani,
Friedman
> > and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
> >
> > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
> >
> > Abe
>
> As I wrote in another post, don't get me started...
>
>
> shouldn't have been given a Prize on general principle.
> To quote the press
> release from The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, "Friedman
> was a pioneer in the well-founded reaction to the earlier post-
> Keynesian one-sidedness." So, that justifies the radical swing
> back to thinly veiled laissez-faire capitalism based on a
> morality that a shark would find disquieting? I don't think so.
> That's given us Enron, World Con (no, that isn't a typo, that's
> deliberate :-) ), Adelphi, sweetheart after hours trading deals
> in mutual funds, etc. I trace much of that back to the ideas
> Friedman and his school have produced that free is good, so
> freer is better, so absolutely free of restrictions (legal,
> moral, or otherwise) must be best. Granted that is a perverse
> and extreme position that Freidman probably doesn't endorse (at
> least publicly), but IMO he was instrumental in letting that
> genie out of the bottle and hasn't worked very hard (that I've
> heard of, at least) to put it back in.
So if capitalism is so bad, how can you work for Cornell University?
Cornell is run just like any other business in the USA. Tuition is set
competitively, based on what other Ivies charge - for the Endowed Schools,
and a premium above SUNY - for the State/Land Grant Schools. Housing is set
at a premium to other schools - thanks to the shortage of on campus housing
and the poor stock of tenements in College Town. Staff salaries are set
based on the local Ithaca economy. Lehman was sacked, er - resigned, and
Hunter R. Rawlings III reinstated, just like Purcell of Morgan Stanley was
dumped and John Mack reinstated.
Did Friedman invent capitalism?
> Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
> King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
> chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
> the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
> Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
Int'l Red Cross??? Surely you jest.
Arafat? Carter? Annan?
-------
Abe
Russell...@wdn.com
Did I say capitalism is bad? If you read that, you need a remedial
reading course, and you if you've read much of what I post you'll
realize (unless, of course, you do need a remedial reading course)
that I normally don't write snide comments like that, but you
earned it. Congratulations. Now, let us review. I wrote, "thinly
veiled laissez-faire capitalism based on a morality that a shark
would find disquieting". That is not a blanket condemnation of
capitalism, just a condemnation certain variety of capitalism.
> how can you work for Cornell University?
How can I work anywhere? ;-) I've worked for private industry,
city government, state government, Federal government, myself.
Do you know of any other general category of employer that I
have not worked for? As for Cornell, my wife got a great offer
from Cornell, so I had to give up a job I had planned to retire
from to come here. Do you have some reason to take an interest
in my personal life, or does that satisfy your curiosity?
> Cornell is run just like any other business in the USA.
You don't appear to know much about Cornell. Cornell is a unique
combination of private and land grant university. In a broad
sense it is run like many organizations (it has an organization
chart, budget, goals, employees, etc.) but it certainly not run
just like other businesses or even just like other universities.
For that matter, some businesses are not run exactly like other
businesses. Your statement is as meaningful as "all businesses
are run the same because they all have to obey the laws of
physics". True, but unenlightening.
> Tuition is set
> competitively, based on what other Ivies charge - for the Endowed Schools,
> and a premium above SUNY - for the State/Land Grant Schools. Housing is set
> at a premium to other schools - thanks to the shortage of on campus housing
> and the poor stock of tenements in College Town.
Yep, just like every university I've ever seen.
> Staff salaries are set
> based on the local Ithaca economy.
LOL. You don't know what you're talking about. Staff salaries
are set by more factors than the local Ithaca economy. If what
you wrote was true, I'd still be living someplace else.
> Lehman was sacked, er - resigned, and
> Hunter R. Rawlings III reinstated, just like Purcell of Morgan Stanley was
> dumped and John Mack reinstated.
Organizations of all types get new leaders all the time. Again,
what you wrote is like saying "Cornell and Morgan Stanley both
have to obey the laws of physics". That hardly implies that
they are run in the same way.
> Did Friedman invent capitalism?
No. Did I say he did? Do you have a point?
> > Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
> > King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
> > chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
> > the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
> > Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
>
> Int'l Red Cross??? Surely you jest.
Surely you jest.
>
> Arafat? Carter? Annan?
Carter yes. As I said to Reef Fish, they all are not great, but
the percentage of good ones is higher than economics, and the work
they do is certainly of higher value than much of economics.
> -------
> Abe
Cheers,
Russell
Russell...@wdn.com
Civility, even humility, do not have to be mutually exclusive with
academic, professional, etc. standards.
I won't argue with you're desire to nominate Friedman for the Nobel
Prize in Statistics when they star awarding it.
snip
Cheers,
Russell
Reef Fish
Russell...@wdn.com wrote:
> Reef Fish wrote:
< snipping ALL to get to a point by Russell >
Russell wrote about Milton Friedman,
> > > A pompous, proselytizing ass (at least IMO that's how he comes
> > > across in the media; maybe reef fish knows him personally and
> > > will tell us he's a prince among men, humble and lovable like
> > > Underdog's alterego, Shoeshine Boy) like Milton Friedman
> > > shouldn't have been given a Prize on general principle.
Russell, NOT that I have any objection to you calling Milton
"A pompous, proselytizing ass" (as your opinion -- we are ALL
entitled to our opinions), but would you call that "civility and
humility" on YOUR part?
> > What do you want, Russell, when it comes to academic SUBSTANCE?
> > A humble, loveable, and kind man who welcome all Quacks with
> > open arms, like many of the posters in this newsgroup do, because
> > they don't know any better?
>
> Civility, even humility, do not have to be mutually exclusive with
> academic, professional, etc. standards.
I don't know Milton well enough to know that he deosn't have civility
or humility. Fred Mosteller's tale about Milton (which I quoted below)
certainly showed Friedman's CIVILITY, when Mosteller and Savage went
to him to pick a fight.
> > In the Jimmie Savage Memorial Volume, Fred Mosteller told about
> > the story of a long paper he and Savage wrote, for the Statistical
> > Research Group of Columbia. They were very pleased with their
> > work, which Allen Wallis gave to the executive director of the
> > project, Milton Friedman, then a statistician.
> >
> > Friedman read it over the weekend, and as Mosteller put it,
> > something to the effect that hardly a line was unchanged when
> > they got it back, and the pages were black with corrections with
> > extended notes and rewriting at the back.
> >
> > Mosteller and Savage carefully studied the HUNDREDS of corrections,
> > and held an "indignation meeting" with Friedman, of the "He can't
> > do this to us" kind. :-) I am now at a Hilton in a different city
> > from the hotel I was in last night, and I wish I have Mosteller's
> > exact quote (he writes as beautifully as Savage does) <when I get
> > home, I'll quote it>.
RF> Here's the exact quote of Mosteller, first hand:
"The more we worked, the more we found that Friedman was occasionally,
well often, let's face it, usually right. We finally made a list of
100 or so objections to Milton's changes and went up seven flights to
do battle with him. Milton was just delighted to see us. In no time
he showed us that he was right in about 85 percent of the objections.
He gave us credit for one or two complaints, admitted that one or two
items were matters of taste, and the rest we agreed to disagree about."
"In the course of this discussion, Milton kindly explained to us that
we knew little about writing, that there were books from which we
could and should learn, and he recommended several to us."
RM > A pompous, proselytizing ass (at least IMO that's how he comes
across
Fred Mosteller's account certainly didn't me THAT idea about Milton,
nor have I personally come across what might fit your "pompous
proslytizing ass" of him. That's all *I* can say, to offer my
difference in opinion to yours.
It's still Fred Mosteller talking:
"During the next few years there was quite a flurry of reading about
writing by both Jimmie and me. <...> Jimmie felt that Fowler (whose
MODERN ENGLISH USAGE is delightful but hard work) was a mathematician
at heart. I think it fair to say that the credit for starting Jimmie
on good writing belongs in the first instance to Milton Friedman.
In the end Jimmie developed a very special style of his own."
That was Milton POSITIVE influence, on two of his colleagues, BOTH of
whom are probably more deserving of a Nobel Prize in Statistics
(if there were one) than Milton.
RF> To ME, the above Tribute to Milton, by Fred Mosteller, a GIANT in
RF> both Statistics and his WRITING about Statistics, on the occasion
of
RF> Jimmie Savage's (who is no Midge in Statistics or Writing himself
:-))
RF> Memorial volume, was more impressive about the man Friedman, than
RF> his Nobel Prize in Economics -- whatever he did for it.
> > Like it or not, Milton KNOWS what he does, and he PRACTICES what
> > he preaches -- in his Free Market theory -- that's the ONLY theory
> > of his I know, and that's where he gets my respect, besides his
> > ability to teach Mosteller and Savage how to WRITE, on a subject
> > in statistics!
>
> I won't argue with you're desire to nominate Friedman for the Nobel
> Prize in Statistics when they star awarding it.
>
> snip
>
> Cheers,
> Russell
Who are "they"? If the Nobel Acadamy finally come clean on admitting
how Alfred Nobel screwed the Mathamaticians and Statisticians, and
decidedd to make amends by start giving a Nobel Prize in Statistics,
Milton Friedman would be far behind in the line of deserving
candidates, behind Mosteller, Savage, and some other statisticians.
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> Who are "they"? If the Nobel Acadamy finally come clean on
> admitting
There is no "Nobel Acadamy", nor even a "Nobel Academy".
Reef Fish
Torkel Franzen, who spends 24/7 posting one-liners of frivol to
hundreds of newsgroups, wasted no time with his drivel here.
You re getting to be quite a pollution-making-specialist in
sci.stat.* groups, NEVER having contributed a SINGLE idea
in statistics.
Torkel, a Spelling Cop is out of style and frowned up now.
So is frivolous nitpicking. How do you know there will be no
"Nobel Academy" whey "they" start awarding Nobel Prizes in
Statistics?
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> How do you know there will be no "Nobel Academy" whey "they" start
> awarding Nobel Prizes in Statistics?
Indeed I don't know any more about your fantasies than what you
choose to post.
Reef Fish
The Nobel Prize in statistics fantasy was Russell Martin's, not
mine. I already knew what Nobel screwed cannot be unscrewed.
Torkel Franzen, who spends 24/7 posting one-liners of frivol to
hundreds of newsgroups, wasted no time with his drivel here.
You re getting to be quite a pollution-making-specialist in
sci.stat.* groups, NEVER having contributed a SINGLE idea
in statistics.
Torkel, a Spelling Cop is out of style and frowned upon now.
So is frivolous nitpicking.
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> The Nobel Prize in statistics fantasy was Russell Martin's, not
> mine.
But I take it the "Nobel Academy" was your contribution?
Reef Fish
Let's see ...
My 3:06 am post of Jul 3 was followed up by Tortel's drivil at 3:09 am.
You are slipping, herr Franzen, the biggest USENET newsgroup troll,
logged in 11,600 THREADS by groups.google, since January 1, 2000,
dispensing mostly one-liner trash.
It took you 7 (SEVEN) minutes this time to follow-up with your
characteristic Franzel Scheizen. <go ahead Spelling Cop!>
That's why I had said:
Torkel Franzen, who spends 24/7 posting one-liners of frivol to
hundreds of newsgroups, wasted no time with his drivel here.
You re getting to be quite a pollution-making-specialist in
sci.stat.* groups, NEVER having contributed a SINGLE idea
in statistics.
Go away, Torkel, you bottom-dwelling scumbag of USENET newsgroups.
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> You are slipping, herr Franzen, the biggest USENET newsgroup troll,
> logged in 11,600 THREADS by groups.google, since January 1, 2000,
> dispensing mostly one-liner trash.
While no doubt statistics of a sort, your findings are not obviously
relevant to the matter of the prize in economics.
Reef Fish
You're slipping even more in your USENET frivol and drivil. What
took you so long this time? It was 3 minutes at 3 am, 7 minutes
earlier, and now 12 minutes before you came up with you latest
Scheiße, und/oder Scheißedüngemittel
Torkel Franzen, das aufwendet, 24/7 bekanntgebenEinzwischenlagen
von frivol zu den Hunderten newsgroup, vergeudete keine Zeit mit
seinem drivel hier.
As I had already told you,
Torkel Franzen
> You're slipping even more in your USENET frivol and drivil. What
> took you so long this time? It was 3 minutes at 3 am, 7 minutes
> earlier, and now 12 minutes before you came up with you latest
> Schei=DFe, und/oder Schei=DFed=FCngemittel
I take it you have no further comment on the prize in economics?
Reef Fish
No more than 6 posts ago, but more than you had in your last
6 posts.
Torkel Franzen
> No more than 6 posts ago, but more than you had in your last
> 6 posts.
So in fact the last 12 postings in this thread have had nothing much
to do with the economics prize? An impressive joint effort!
Erkki.Ko...@helsinki.fi.invalid
:Go away, Torkel, you bottom-dwelling scumbag of USENET newsgroups.
Back to business and have some respect to netiquette.
The name of the UNG is sci.stat.math and/or sci.stat.edu. Please keep it
that way.
Erkki
040-5024491 <http://www.helsinki.fi/people/Erkki.Komulainen/>
Reef Fish
6 of mine to expose 6 of Torkel Franzel's frivolous drivels.
That was certainly ON TOPIC of an OT topic, even though you make
your pointless frivol on regular statistical and other topices!
So, you DO know the answer of 2 times 6. Congratulations.
That's the first MATH related remark you've made in at least
the last 6 posts of yours.
Torkel Franzen, das aufwendet, 24/7 bekanntgebenEinzwischenlagen
von frivol zu den Hunderten newsgroup, vergeudete keine Zeit mit
seinem drivel hier.
Torkel Franzen, who spends 24/7 posting one-liners of frivol to
hundreds of newsgroups, wasted no time with his drivel here.
You re getting to be quite a pollution-making-specialist in
sci.stat.* groups, NEVER having contributed a SINGLE idea
in statistics.
GO AWAY, Torkel Frznzen, and take your Finnish pals Bob O'Hara
and Erkki Komulai, who are equally bankrupt in their knowledge
of STATISTICS with you.
The only thing worse than a statistical Quack is a NOISY
Statistical Quack.
-- Bob.
Torkel Franzen
> GO AWAY, Torkel Frznzen, and take your Finnish pals Bob O'Hara
> and Erkki Komulai, who are equally bankrupt in their knowledge
> of STATISTICS with you.
My knowledge of statistics is indeed negligible. Your knowledge of
the Nobel prizes and of Russell and Godel is also negligible. There is
nothing reprehensible in this: why should you know anything about
these things? But then why this tireless flaming and ranting? Surely
there are better things you could do with your time.
Erkki.Ko...@helsinki.fi.invalid
:Carter yes. As I said to Reef Fish, they all are not great, but
:the percentage of good ones is higher than economics, and the work
:they do is certainly of higher value than much of economics.
Please stop! This forum has been a useful one. Do not make it a forum of
something else. Erkki
040-5024491 <http://www.helsinki.fi/people/Erkki.Komulainen/>
Russell...@wdn.com
distortions of what I write? I decline, but thank you for your
concern.
Cheers,
Russell
Russell...@wdn.com
> "Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > GO AWAY, Torkel Frznzen, and take your Finnish pals Bob O'Hara
> > and Erkki Komulai, who are equally bankrupt in their knowledge
> > of STATISTICS with you.
>
> My knowledge of statistics is indeed negligible. Your knowledge of
> the Nobel prizes and of Russell and Godel is also negligible.
Thank you. This is undoubtedly the only time my name and Godel's
will be in the same sentence. :-)
> There is
> nothing reprehensible in this: why should you know anything about
> these things? But then why this tireless flaming and ranting? Surely
> there are better things you could do with your time.
Cheers,
Russell
Anon.
> Torkel Franzen wrote:
>
>>"Reef Fish" <Large_Nass...@Yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>GO AWAY, Torkel Frznzen, and take your Finnish pals Bob O'Hara
>>>and Erkki Komulai, who are equally bankrupt in their knowledge
>>>of STATISTICS with you.
>>
>> My knowledge of statistics is indeed negligible. Your knowledge of
>>the Nobel prizes and of Russell and Godel is also negligible.
>
>
> Thank you. This is undoubtedly the only time my name and Godel's
> will be in the same sentence. :-)
>
But think yourself fortunate: the only famous person I can claim with
the same surname is Scarlett O'Hara. At least Bertrand Russell actually
existed.
Bob
Torkel Franzen
> But think yourself fortunate: the only famous person I can claim with
> the same surname is Scarlett O'Hara. At least Bertrand Russell actually
> existed.
The O'Haras, it seems, tend to be literary figures or actors. John
O'Hara is a fairly famous American novelist, Frank O'Hara a well-known
poet. This, of course, is in accordance with the popular view of the
Irish, not usually associated with tedious subjects like statistics!
Herman Rubin
<Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
>Abe Kohen wrote:
>> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
>> > Abe Kohen wrote:
>> > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
>> > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
.....................
>> > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>> > > Abe
.....................
>> > Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
>> > King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
>> > chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
>> > the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
>> > Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
>> Int'l Red Cross??? Surely you jest.
>Surely you jest.
What has the Red Cross done to enhance peace?
>> Arafat? Carter? Annan?
>Carter yes. As I said to Reef Fish, they all are not great, but
>the percentage of good ones is higher than economics, and the work
>they do is certainly of higher value than much of economics.
Carter, if anything, is the one who did the most to reduce
progress toward peace. His FAILING was in being willing to
assume that people have "good intentions" despite all the
evidence to the contrary. Did he even have his aides look
at the non-English rhetoric of Khoumeini and Arafat?
>> Abe
>Cheers,
>Russell
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Reef Fish
Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <1120368587.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
> >Abe Kohen wrote:
> >> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> >> > Abe Kohen wrote:
> >> > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
> >> > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
>
> .....................
>
> >> > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>
> >> > > Abe
>
> .....................
>
> >> > Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
> >> > King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
> >> > chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
> >> > the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
> >> > Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
>
> >> Int'l Red Cross??? Surely you jest.
>
> >Surely you jest.
>
> What has the Red Cross done to enhance peace?
By waving the RED flag instead of the WHITE flag? :-)
The Ape Kohenisms are getting more and more ridiculous and the
">"s are getting harder and harder to track, but I think (Honest)
Abe who aspires to be Abe Lincoln, has furnished MOST of the
ridiculous examples,
>
>
> >> Arafat? Carter? Annan?
>
> >Carter yes. As I said to Reef Fish, they all are not great, but
> >the percentage of good ones is higher than economics, and the work
> >they do is certainly of higher value than much of economics.
>
> Carter, if anything, is the one who did the most to reduce
> progress toward peace. His FAILING was in being willing to
> assume that people have "good intentions" despite all the
> evidence to the contrary. Did he even have his aides look
> at the non-English rhetoric of Khoumeini and Arafat?
I agree. Carter was too good and too honest a Man to have been
elected the President of the United Stated. Pity.
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
> In article <1120368587.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
> >Abe Kohen wrote:
> >> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> >> > Abe Kohen wrote:
> >> > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
> >> > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
>
> .....................
>
> >> > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
>
> >> > > Abe
>
> .....................
>
> >> > Taking your argument, do you think Mother Teresa, Martin Luther
> >> > King, Norman Borlaug, Linus Pauling (who also won the prize for
> >> > chemistry, so I'd like to see you argue he's not Nobel quality),
> >> > the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Andrei
> >> > Sakharov are not Nobel quality?
>
> >> Int'l Red Cross??? Surely you jest.
>
> >Surely you jest.
>
> What has the Red Cross done to enhance peace?
I shouldn't have to do a web search for a person of your intellect,
but since you insist,
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1963/press.html . That's
what the Nobel committee thinks it has done. You're welciome to
your opinion, but AFAIK you don't vote on the Prize, so it is
just that.
>
> >> Arafat? Carter? Annan?
>
> >Carter yes. As I said to Reef Fish, they all are not great, but
> >the percentage of good ones is higher than economics, and the work
> >they do is certainly of higher value than much of economics.
>
> Carter, if anything, is the one who did the most to reduce
> progress toward peace. His FAILING was in being willing to
> assume that people have "good intentions" despite all the
> evidence to the contrary.
IOW you think he's an idealist. I have a news flash for you,
most people who seriously work toward peace are idealist
according to what appears to be your definition.
> Did he even have his aides look
> at the non-English rhetoric of Khoumeini and Arafat?
>
Did you even think about that rhetorical question before you
posted it?
Cheers,
Russell
Herman Rubin
.....................
>> >> > > Abe
.....................
>> >Surely you jest.
>> >> Arafat? Carter? Annan?
Was this a rhetorical question? This was fairly well known
at the time. But the bleeding heart liberals cannot accept
that what rabble rousers say to their followers might be
what they really mean.
*I* was quite aware of what Khoumeini was stating in his
writings to the Iranians before Carter put pressure on the
Shah, who might not have been doing the best he could, but
was doing a good job.
And as far as Arafat was concerned, if Carter wanted peace,
he should have told Arafat that there needed to be a long
period of non-aggression from his group before they could
be trusted. As Reagan put it to Gorbashev, trust but verify.
Only a fool trusts his enemies not to do the worst they
have said without them being even more threatened.
Russell...@wdn.com
That's all it could be as far as I can tell.
> This was fairly well known
> at the time.
What was known at what time? And what does it have to do with
Carter getting the Nobel Peace Prize? Nothing that I can see in
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2002/press.html , hence
your comment seems to me to be nothing more than rhetorical.
> But the bleeding heart liberals cannot accept
> that what rabble rousers say to their followers might be
> what they really mean.
Oh yeah, make an ad homimen attack on liberals, that takes no
effort, not to mention logic. I expected better from you, but
I've clearly touched a nerve and the pain has clouded your
thinking, so I apologize.
>
> *I* was quite aware of what Khoumeini was stating in his
> writings to the Iranians before Carter put pressure on the
> Shah, who might not have been doing the best he could, but
> was doing a good job.
Again, that is a separate issue from what Carter was given
the Peace Prize for. Is your point that Carter didn't have
a perfect Presidency? Fine, that differs from no other
President.
> And as far as Arafat was concerned, if Carter wanted peace,
> he should have told Arafat that there needed to be a long
> period of non-aggression from his group before they could
> be trusted.
Carter was given the Peace Prize in part for his mediation
between Isreal and Egypt. AFAIK Arafat wasn't the leader of
either. So, again, what does that have to do with Carter as
a choice of the Nobel Committee?
> As Reagan put it to Gorbashev, trust but verify.
Yeah, like that was original to either of them, and IIRC
Gorbashev first said it to Reagan.
>
> Only a fool trusts his enemies not to do the worst they
> have said without them being even more threatened.
True, but again so what? The topic isn't whether Carter is
perfect, it is was he worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. IMO,
and more importantly in the opinion of the Nobel Committee,
he was. YMMV.
Cheers,
Russell
Abe Kohen
> Abe Kohen wrote:
> > <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> > > Abe Kohen wrote:
> > > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
> > > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
> > > > >
economics
> > > > > prize with the name of Nobel is unfortunate, and can be expected
to
> > > > > devalue the proper Nobel prizes.
> > > >
> > > > You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani,
> > Friedman
> > > > and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
> > > >
> > > > Abe
> > >
>
> reading course, and you if you've read much of what I post you'll
> realize (unless, of course, you do need a remedial reading course)
> that I normally don't write snide comments like that, but you
> earned it. Congratulations.
No need to sink so low and invoke personal attacks, aka, ad hominem
arguments.
>
> > how can you work for Cornell University?
>
>
> > Cornell is run just like any other business in the USA.
>
> You don't appear to know much about Cornell. Cornell is a unique
> combination of private and land grant university. In a broad
Read ahead before you write, and even you could note that I am acutely aware
of this (unenlightening) dichotomy.
> sense it is run like many organizations (it has an organization
> chart, budget, goals, employees, etc.) but it certainly not run
> just like other businesses or even just like other universities.
Please provide evidence, rather than sentiment.
>
> > Tuition is set
> > competitively, based on what other Ivies charge - for the Endowed
Schools,
> > and a premium above SUNY - for the State/Land Grant Schools. Housing is
set
> > at a premium to other schools - thanks to the shortage of on campus
housing
> > and the poor stock of tenements in College Town.
>
> Yep, just like every university I've ever seen.
And as good as capitalism gets.
>
> > Staff salaries are set
> > based on the local Ithaca economy.
>
> LOL. You don't know what you're talking about. Staff salaries
> are set by more factors than the local Ithaca economy. If what
> you wrote was true, I'd still be living someplace else.
Staff, as in non-academic, as in snow crew, garbage crew, cleaning crew,
drivers, cooks, etc.
>
> > Lehman was sacked, er - resigned, and
> > Hunter R. Rawlings III reinstated, just like Purcell of Morgan Stanley
was
> > dumped and John Mack reinstated.
>
> Organizations of all types get new leaders all the time.
Cornell did not get a "new" leader. Instead Rawlings was brought out of
retirement, so that Lehman would not have the opportunity to serve until a
"new" leader was found. And for all the talk of academic openness, nothing
beats the opaqueness, as expressed by Rawlings in his letter to alumni:
"President Lehman's resignation was an unfortunate event for many reasons,
and it has generated lingering questions in our community because it came
suddenly and without extensive explanation. As you know, President Lehman
and the Board of Trustees have agreed that his and the
institution's best interests will be served by foregoing more open
discussion."
>
> > Did Friedman invent capitalism?
>
> No. Did I say he did? Do you have a point?
I hate to resort to ad hominems, but can you read? No, not what I wrote, but
your attack on him.
Abe
Abe Kohen
Of course Professor Rubin did not vote on the prize. It is precisely the
Nobel (Piece) Committee which votes and has debased the prize.
Take the following quote from your URL:
"In Mohammedan countries the Red Cross became the Red Half-Moon on white, in
Iran the Red Lion and Sun."
Then why hasn't the Red Shield of David (Magen David Adom) been acceptable
to the Int'l Red Cross? Peace? Piece!
Abe
Abe Kohen
> Herman Rubin wrote:
> > <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
> > >Herman Rubin wrote:
> > >> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
> > >> >Abe Kohen wrote:
> > >> >> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> > >> >> > Abe Kohen wrote:
> > >> >> > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
> > >> >> > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
> > >> >> > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
> > >> >> Arafat? Carter? Annan?
> >
> > >> >Carter yes. As I said to Reef Fish, they all are not great, but
> > >> >the percentage of good ones is higher than economics, and the work
> > >> >they do is certainly of higher value than much of economics.
> >
> > >> Carter, if anything, is the one who did the most to reduce
> > >> progress toward peace. His FAILING was in being willing to
> > >> assume that people have "good intentions" despite all the
> > >> evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > >IOW you think he's an idealist. I have a news flash for you,
> > >most people who seriously work toward peace are idealist
> > >according to what appears to be your definition.
> >
> > >> Did he even have his aides look
> > >> at the non-English rhetoric of Khoumeini and Arafat?
> >
> >
> > >Did you even think about that rhetorical question before you
> > >posted it?
> >
> > Was this a rhetorical question?
>
> That's all it could be as far as I can tell.
>
> > This was fairly well known
> > at the time.
>
> What was known at what time? And what does it have to do with
> Carter getting the Nobel Peace Prize? Nothing that I can see in
> http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2002/press.html , hence
> your comment seems to me to be nothing more than rhetorical.
Everything. The argument that the Nobel Peace Prize devalues all others,
assumes that the press releases are PR pieces, and the committee debases the
prize.
>
> > But the bleeding heart liberals cannot accept
> > that what rabble rousers say to their followers might be
> > what they really mean.
>
> Oh yeah, make an ad homimen attack on liberals, that takes no
First, Professor Rubin said "bleeding heart liberals," and not just
"liberals." (Damn it sounds like your evasive argument on laissez-faire
capitalism. Oh well.)
Second, there is nothing ad hominem about it. He is not attacking the "man,"
rather the ideas of "bleeding heart liberals."
> effort, not to mention logic. I expected better from you, but
> I've clearly touched a nerve and the pain has clouded your
> thinking, so I apologize.
Now, this is ad hominem! You've lost the point, so you attack the man.
>
> Again, that is a separate issue from what Carter was given
> the Peace Prize for. Is your point that Carter didn't have
> a perfect Presidency? Fine, that differs from no other
> President.
Carter not only did not have a perfect presidency, he had a failed
presidency. Even the people in the Blue States voted to oust him and elect
Ronald Reagan.
> Carter was given the Peace Prize in part for his mediation
> between Isreal and Egypt.
Begin and Sadat earned the Peace Prize for bringing peace between Israel and
Egypt. Carter offset any good he did at Camp David by his bungling of Iran.
> > As Reagan put it to Gorbashev, trust but verify.
>
> Yeah, like that was original to either of them, and IIRC
> Gorbashev first said it to Reagan.
Evidence that Gorbachev said it first?
Abe
Reef Fish
Abe Kohen wrote:
> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> > Herman Rubin wrote:
> > > <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
> > > >Herman Rubin wrote:
> > > >> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote:
> > > >> >Abe Kohen wrote:
> > > >> >> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> > > >> >> > Abe Kohen wrote:
> > > >> >> > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
> > > >> >> > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
>
> Now, this is ad hominem!
>
> Abe
Now this is NOT ad hominem below. It acknowledges what little you
DO know, and gave you a constructive adice while you failed to
recognize:
RF> You'll do FINE as a C Programmer. I think a newsgroup for C
RF> Programmers is where you belong and will be mutually beneficial
RF> to YOU and the programming.C group(s). But don't let that give
RF> you the illusion that you know much about programming languages
RF> or any of the subjects which make use of programs
-- Bob.
Russell...@wdn.com
You're welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
>
> >
> > > But the bleeding heart liberals cannot accept
> > > that what rabble rousers say to their followers might be
> > > what they really mean.
> >
> > Oh yeah, make an ad homimen attack on liberals, that takes no
>
> First, Professor Rubin said "bleeding heart liberals," and not just
> "liberals."
"Liberal" or "bleeding heart liberal" are both used these days as
ad homimum attacks on people (some who are not even liberals, just
disagree on some matter), and I just used "liberal" because I didn't
feel like typing more. So, if IYO it is OK to make an ad hominem
attack using "bleeding heart liberal" but not using just "liberal",
thanks for letting us know where you stand on the issue.
> (Damn it sounds like your evasive argument on laissez-faire
> capitalism. Oh well.)
On the contrary, your attack on my position was a complete
misrepresentation, and your mention of it here is even more
disingenuous on your part since I wrote, just to set the facts
(from which you appear to be increasingly estranged) straight,
"thinly veiled laissez-faire capitalism based on a morality
that a shark would find disquieting". You've never specified
just what part of that you like so much that you felt you had
to disagree with me, so tell us, is it capitalism, laissez-faire,
or morality that a shark would find disquieting of which you are
so in favor? I personally favor the first, but not the last two.
>
> Second, there is nothing ad hominem about it. He is not attacking the "man,"
> rather the ideas of "bleeding heart liberals."
>
> > effort, not to mention logic. I expected better from you, but
> > I've clearly touched a nerve and the pain has clouded your
> > thinking, so I apologize.
>
> Now, this is ad hominem! You've lost the point, so you attack the man.
No, I just wonder why he, and you for that matter, seem to have a
problem with the work of an organization like the International Red
Cross or a man like Jimmy Carter. All I can figure is there's some
underlying sore point since there appears to be no rational argument
being presented against the Nobel Committee's decision (note: IMO a
rational argument would actually refer to the Committee's statements
on their reasons). That is an attempt to understand, not attack, him
and/or you.
>
> >
> > Again, that is a separate issue from what Carter was given
> > the Peace Prize for. Is your point that Carter didn't have
> > a perfect Presidency? Fine, that differs from no other
> > President.
>
> Carter not only did not have a perfect presidency, he had a failed
> presidency.
Failed is a subjective judgement. People voted Bush I out, too,
and while I wasn't especially enamored of the guy, I wouldn't say
he had a failed presidency. OTOH they elected Bush II almost twice,
and he's a walking disaster, IMO.
> Even the people in the Blue States voted to oust him and elect
> Ronald Reagan.
You can fool most of the people most of the time, and Reagan was
good at fooling people, being an experienced actor.
>
> > Carter was given the Peace Prize in part for his mediation
> > between Isreal and Egypt.
>
> Begin and Sadat earned the Peace Prize for bringing peace between Israel and
> Egypt.
Yes, they did. So, are you implying that Carter didn't get his
Prize in part for his work at Camp David? It's not that I've
made it hard for you to get the facts, since I've posted the link
in the message you replied to, but just so you don't have to strain
yourself at all to get the facts, here's the quote:
----------
The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel
Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring
effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to
advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and
social development.
During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a
vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and
Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the
Nobel Peace Prize.
----------
> Carter offset any good he did at Camp David by his bungling of Iran.
Ahh, so maybe that is the sore point. Well, I don't know any American
that was happy about it, but I have not heard anyone prove that they
could have handled it better. And apparently it doesn't get scored
that way by the Nobel Committee.
Now, what's your beef with the IRC?
>
> > > As Reagan put it to Gorbashev, trust but verify.
> >
> > Yeah, like that was original to either of them, and IIRC
> > Gorbashev first said it to Reagan.
>
> Evidence that Gorbachev said it first?
As I recall seeing it on TV news, Reagan said at a press conference
or photo op something like "As Premier Gorbachev said to me this
morning, 'There is an old Russian saying, trust but verify' ". I
don't have it on video tape so you can call me a liar if you want
(which IMO you've shown yourself more than willing to do on the
least pretext), and since it is apparent that you won't bother to
research it yourself, since I've had to find other facts for you,
I fully expect you to call me a liar about the point. Or you can
prove me a liar by not calling be a liar. :-) Either way you win
a rhetorical point. Hooray for you!
Cheers,
Russell
Russell...@wdn.com
are totally ecumenical. Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose
then that you don't think the Prize should have gone to the Dalai
Lama either. Oh well, as I replied to someone, all the awards
may not all be perfect, but I stand by my opinion that the
Economics Prize devalues the others.
Cheers,
Russell
Russell...@wdn.com
> <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> > Abe Kohen wrote:
> > > <Russell...@wdn.com> wrote
> > > > Abe Kohen wrote:
> > > > > "Torkel Franzen" <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote
> > > > > > Russell...@wdn.com writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In Sweden, it has been argued that the association of the
> economics
> > > > > > prize with the name of Nobel is unfortunate, and can be expected
> to
> > > > > > devalue the proper Nobel prizes.
> > > > >
> > > > > You think Kahneman, Harsanyi, Nash, Sharpe, Markowitz, Modigliani,
> > > Friedman
> > > > > and Samuelson are not Nobel quality?
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO, it is the Nobel Peace Prize which devalues all others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Abe
> > > >
> >
> > Did I say capitalism is bad? If you read that, you need a remedial
> > reading course, and you if you've read much of what I post you'll
> > realize (unless, of course, you do need a remedial reading course)
> > that I normally don't write snide comments like that, but you
> > earned it. Congratulations.
>
> No need to sink so low and invoke personal attacks, aka, ad hominem
> arguments.
If you think so, why did you begin using them?
>
> >
> > > how can you work for Cornell University?
> >
> >
> > > Cornell is run just like any other business in the USA.
> >
> > You don't appear to know much about Cornell. Cornell is a unique
> > combination of private and land grant university. In a broad
>
> Read ahead before you write,
[obvious reply omitted]
> and even you could note that I am
> acutely aware of this (unenlightening) dichotomy.
Good for you. You do not appear to have internalized the
information. In any case, my employers, past or present, are
not germain to my opinion on capitalism.
>
> > sense it is run like many organizations (it has an organization
> > chart, budget, goals, employees, etc.) but it certainly not run
> > just like other businesses or even just like other universities.
>
> Please provide evidence, rather than sentiment.
If you're so "acutely aware", then you already know. You've
ignored evidence I presented before, so I'm less inclined to do
your research for you than before even if you needed the help.
>
> >
> > > Tuition is set
> > > competitively, based on what other Ivies charge - for the Endowed
> Schools,
> > > and a premium above SUNY - for the State/Land Grant Schools. Housing is
> set
> > > at a premium to other schools - thanks to the shortage of on campus
> housing
> > > and the poor stock of tenements in College Town.
> >
> > Yep, just like every university I've ever seen.
>
> And as good as capitalism gets.
>
> >
> > > Staff salaries are set
> > > based on the local Ithaca economy.
> >
> > LOL. You don't know what you're talking about. Staff salaries
> > are set by more factors than the local Ithaca economy. If what
> > you wrote was true, I'd still be living someplace else.
>
> Staff, as in non-academic, as in snow crew, garbage crew, cleaning crew,
> drivers, cooks, etc.
I'm staff. It says so right in the online directory where I'm listed.
IIRC I mentioned this to Reef Fish once.
>
> >
> > > Lehman was sacked, er - resigned, and
> > > Hunter R. Rawlings III reinstated, just like Purcell of Morgan Stanley
> was
> > > dumped and John Mack reinstated.
> >
> > Organizations of all types get new leaders all the time.
>
> Cornell did not get a "new" leader. Instead Rawlings was brought out of
> retirement, so that Lehman would not have the opportunity to serve until a
> "new" leader was found.
I said, "Organizations of all types get new leaders all the time." I
didn't mention Cornell and the only implication that can be drawn
from my statement relative to Cornell might be that I think Cornell
will get a "new" leader in the future, assuming it doesn't get wiped
out by an asteroid or something. That is hardly a radical conclusion.
You're attempted hair splitting aside, as I said, it isn't germane.
If you want to talk about capitalism, you could ask about my bouts of
self-employment, not that I'd tell you anything because it is also
none of your business.
> And for all the talk of academic openness, nothing
> beats the opaqueness, as expressed by Rawlings in his letter to alumni:
>
> "President Lehman's resignation was an unfortunate event for many reasons,
> and it has generated lingering questions in our community because it came
> suddenly and without extensive explanation. As you know, President Lehman
> and the Board of Trustees have agreed that his and the
> institution's best interests will be served by foregoing more open
> discussion."
This is germain to my opinion on capitalism how?
> >
> > > Did Friedman invent capitalism?
> >
> > No. Did I say he did? Do you have a point?
>
> I hate to resort to ad hominems,
You've shown no hesitation so far.
> but can you read? No, not what I wrote, but
> your attack on him.
>
> Abe
I gave my *opinion* about the man's *work* and how it has been
used and, IMO, in some cases misused, and my *opinion* of how
his personality comes across in the media. According to Reef
Fish, my latter opinion is not far off of the impression one
might get of the man's personality in person. Other than that,
you should present exactly, specifically, and *in context* how
what I wrote is an ad hominem attack. Then perhaps you could
persuade me of the error of my ways by direct argumentation
rather than misrepresenting what I write and then trying to
deflect the argument by discussing the present state of my
career.
Cheers,
Russell
Anon.
>>Everything. The argument that the Nobel Peace Prize devalues all others,
>>assumes that the press releases are PR pieces, and the committee debases the
>>prize.
>
>
> You're welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
>
chance of either stopping this thread, or moving it to somewhere more
on-topic?
Bob
--
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 68 (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2b)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 51479
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax: +358-9-191 51400
WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org