BitaTruble
Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006 From: Texas Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Damn shame I'm not saying anything about what the numbers "mean". Not a damn shame, really. More like a forgone conclusion. You can't say anything (nor can I) about what 'else' those numbers mean .. because we simply don't know. quote:
I am summarizing what they are. I am asking what they mean. There is zero interpretation taking place. Then we are in agreement. You don't know what those numbers mean and any conclusion drawn from them is simply opinion .. as I already stated. quote:
True, the statistics would form the answer to the question of why the top paid positions on Obama's staff are held mainly by men, but there is no statistical analysis required to state that the top paid positions on Obama's staff are held mainly by men. That is a summary of the reported data. At this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. I find that conclusion you've drawn to be flawed due to the unavailable data set. I do not agree that the top paid positions on Obamas staff are held by men. I will stipulate that I don't know if they are or not .. but certainly I won't agree that such is accurate but neither would I argue that it is inaccurate.. only that it is inconclusive. quote:
Again, observation, not analysis. Again, opinion, not empirical observation. Observe the numbers and what you 'can' conclude is that Staffer John Doe made X $'s during the period of April to Sept (or whatever time frame is pertinent to a given staffer). That is via empirical observation of the numbers and the one and only conclusion you can draw from the information which is available. That is the 'proven'. Anything else is extrapolation from a skewed data set. Since empirical observation would prove the premise and it does not it's simply opinion that the top paid staffers are men. quote:
However, let us consider some possible statistical conclusions. Yes, I am speculating here--idle pleasure for a Sunday morning and a pleasant change from watching Gustav bear down on New Orleans. There are no 'possible statastical conclusions' to be drawn from the available data set. Without more information the numbers mean what they mean ... and that's all that they mean. quote:
You are correct to state that the data itself does not answer the questions. Yes, I know. quote:
The data is what gives rise to the questions. Which is another debate. One I look forward to having if such data becomes available. So far, I haven't had any luck in that regard. quote:
It would be interesting to see the statistical analysis that would answer these questions. Indeed and as I said it would take nothing more than a rate of pay scale (time cards or something along those lines would probably work) to be able to draw a myriad of conclusions. Think the RNC will be asking for them? Ever wonder why the RNC hasn't already asked? This data has been available for a very long time, after all. If there is smoke here, why isn't the RNC fanning them into a brilliant fire? I have to wonder why that's not happening. You're voting McCain if I remember correctly. Ever think about dropping him a line with your thoughts on Obama's staff salaries? He might just be interested. Who knows.. maybe you could get a cabinent position or something! Seriously! I mean, this could be huge and the guy who calls attention to it would be a darling of the RNC. Don't forget us little guys while you're up there in Washington.
_____________________________
"Oh, so it's just like Rock, paper, scissors." He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."
|