Medicine is not "actually all that demanding academically"?! Compared with what?
Quantum gravity. Theoretical physics. Data science. Object-oriented programming. Chemistry. Pure mathematics. Computational engineering. Statistics.
As people have said, you need high grades because the number of places is very limited.
At research level, medicine is highly demanding, but not at the level of training or general practice.
Pah! Pure sciences maybe; O-O programming, data science, statistics - you must be joking!
I note you don't include any liberal arts topics in your list (unsuprisingly).
I definitely wouldn't put statistics or programming into a list of "hard to do" stuff. Though maybe we should add statistics for a while, given the poor quality coming out of the ONS.
After the problem appeared in the Parade magazine, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong. Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy. Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result.
So statistics can be an intellectual challenge for the best brains.
Looking at the HESA website, 10500 of those studying dentistry and medicine in 2016/7 were non-UK out of a total of 65,000. c. 80% of the non-UK students were from non-EU countries
So we are training over 10000 students per year to build up knowledge which, in most cases, they will take home. While they pay fees, that benefits the university only. The wider cost of supporting medical training is borne by the UK taxpayer.
Surely an obvious route would be to put a cap on the number of foreign students allowed per year (let's say 5%, so just over 3K) and retain the rest for UK students, and then do something on the social mobility front? That would mean an extra 7,500 students per year being trained up who would, very likely, continue to work in the UK. The universities would hate it because they lost the fees but it would benefit society.
But the fees that the non-EU students pay subsidise the UK students. So if we cut the overseas students, then we have to increase the fees for UK students, or make up that money elsewhere.
Or stop sending bonkers numbers of people pointlessly to university.
Medicine is not "actually all that demanding academically"?! Compared with what?
Quantum gravity. Theoretical physics. Data science. Object-oriented programming. Chemistry. Pure mathematics. Computational engineering. Statistics.
As people have said, you need high grades because the number of places is very limited.
At research level, medicine is highly demanding, but not at the level of training or general practice.
Pah! Pure sciences maybe; O-O programming, data science, statistics - you must be joking!
I note you don't include any liberal arts topics in your list (unsuprisingly).
Why is it unsurprising? I am happy to include many liberal arts subjects (e.g., most languages).
As regards statistics, let's see. I can give an example of a famous doctor who was so smart he thought he understood statistics, and he sent people to jail.
He sent Sally Clark to jail.
He sent Trupti Patel to jail.
He sent Angela Canning to jail.
He sent Ian and Angela Gay to jail.
All verdicts overturned eventually, but many lives ruined. . And all because he didn't understand statistics -- according to you, a doctor is so brilliant that a little bit of statistics should be easy for him to grasp.
Trump could well be gone in 3 years or so, and certainly gone in 7 or so. I wouldn't make a long term decision like that just on the basis of one office holder.
I would imagine if Trump gets re-elected, he'd make a play for revoking the 22nd amendment. Still, he can't live forever even if he is very healthy - probably the healthiest person he knows.
Trump would be 82 at the end of a third term as President. I think he'd rather handover to Ivanka.
However, he should definitely make a move to revoke the 22nd amendment if he wins re-election. The Democrats would be traumatised already and the possibility of a third Trump term would scare the bejesus out of them. It would distract an enormous amount of Democrat opposition effort and media attention from the other, more consequential, things that he wanted to do. And it would prevent all the lame duck nonsense that second-term Presidents suffer from.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
In fairness to her constituents the government doesn't know what they were voting for either
https21
Whilethough.
We.
Exactly what Putin wanted.
And a choice it is making itself.
The UK wanted to collaborate on this.
Th.
Th
The on.
But that attitude is precisely why the UK might walk from Nato and intelligence co-operation in the event of No Deal. If the electorate comes to see European intransigence as precipitating a serious crisis - and No Deal would do that - then people will legitimately question why we're defending countries intent on doing us harm.
In any case, is Nato really worth much without the US - and who believes that Trump is reliable in the event of a Ukraine-style situation in, say, Estonia?
I’m not sure that follows. NATO is a northern hemisphere Western defensive alliance that also these days, at times, pursues a quasi global role, particularly in the Middle East and Gulf. It will always be in Britain’s direct interests to work to contain Russia until it becomes a stable liberal democracy, not only by land in its immediate neighbourhood but also to avoid surrendering strategic dominance to it in the North Sea, Baltic and Mediterranean, not to mention the Atlantic because we are geographically in close proximity to Europe and there will always be security concerns where our interests coincide. Further, i think the US still has an interest in peace and security in Europe, as does Canada, because they are friendly western democracies that matter for both its values and the security of its trade. If we are excluded from EU security structures we might be more mercenary in assessing our direct interests within the NATO alliance but otherwise i’d expect it to be unaffected. Our membership predated the EEC by over 20 years.
You are right to say that NATO was explicitly set up to defend against an aggressive and very powerful Soviet Union, which has now largely gone, but neither has the Russian threat gone nor have strategic threats to Western democracies globally.
In time, I think it’s far more likely that NATO would evolve into a GDTO (global defence treaty organisation) than be wound up, including nations like Australia, New Zealand and Japan as a start. And, eventually, possibly India as well.
Medicine is not "actually all that demanding academically"?! Compared with what?
Quantum gravity. Theoretical physics. Data science. Object-oriented programming. Chemistry. Pure mathematics. Computational engineering. Statistics.
As people have said, you need high grades because the number of places is very limited.
At research level, medicine is highly demanding, but not at the level of training or general practice.
Pah! Pure sciences maybe; O-O programming, data science, statistics - you must be joking!
I note you don't include any liberal arts topics in your list (unsuprisingly).
Why is it unsurprising? I am happy to include many liberal arts subjects (e.g., most languages).
As regards statistics, let's see. I can give an example of a famous doctor who was so smart he thought he understood statistics, and he send people to jail.
He sent Sally Clark to jail.
He sent Trupti Patel to jail.
He sent Angela Canning to jail.
He sent Ian and Angela Gay to jail.
All verdict overturned eventually, but many lives ruined. . And all because he didn't understand statistics -- according to you, a doctor is so brilliant that a little bit of statistics should be easy for him to grasp.
Dear oh dear - grow up!
Just conferred with my wife (qualified nurse and History MA) and she, as ever, has cut through this by pointing out it's a silly (typically male) thing to try to grade things on a linear scale which just cannot be judged that way.
She's convinced me that it's utterly pointless trying to say that one discipline is more or less academic than another; the skills and knowledge required to be an excllent doctor are different from those required to be an excellent historian, linguist, programmer, statistician etc. etc.
I'd say there is a majority for staying pretty close in a/the/arrangement CU, but also to have meaningful immigration controls with the EU. (as an aside I think Sajid has hit the nail on the head this morning, nobody is seriously going to object to more doctors arriving from Singapore, or Canada, or Eithopia to do high paid jobs we want in the NHS. More of this sort of targeted thing please!).
I object. We are one of the most scientifically developed countries in the world, we should be training and exporting doctors and engineers.
We should be offering free scholarships to Ethiopians to train as doctors, and then encouraging them to return to Ethiopia where their new skills are badly needed.
This is what the Labour Party believed in, once upon a time.
As Caroline Flint put it yesterday, why is it so hard for my constituents (in the Don Valley) to train as doctors?
It is the culture.
But culture can be changed. Look at seat belts, smoking, drink driving; all examples where the culture has changed.
Trump could well be gone in 3 years or so, and certainly gone in 7 or so. I wouldn't make a long term decision like that just on the basis of one office holder.
I would imagine if Trump gets re-elected, he'd make a play for revoking the 22nd amendment. Still, he can't live forever even if he is very healthy - probably the healthiest person he knows.
Trump would be 82 at the end of a third term as President. I think he'd rather handover to Ivanka.
However, he should definitely make a move to revoke the 22nd amendment if he wins re-election. The Democrats would be traumatised already and the possibility of a third Trump term would scare the bejesus out of them. It would distract an enormous amount of Democrat opposition effort and media attention from the other, more consequential, things that he wanted to do. And it would prevent all the lame duck nonsense that second-term Presidents suffer from.
Interesting to think whether without the 22nd, Obama would have defeated Trump? I suspect he would.
Mr. Pointer, Clinton should've defeated Trump. The idiocy of calling half the electorate a basket of deplorables and not sending campaign resources to battleground states was what cost her.
I agree Obama would've beaten Trump. Biden would've too.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
I love history and am proud of my degree, but several other subjects are much harder.
On medicine and statistics, Bayes is counterintuitive but not particularly difficult. I'd hope all GPs have a basic understanding as it has implications (False positives) when presenting diagnoses to patients. I'd have thought it would be covered in medical school.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
I was doing all that stuff as a 5-year-old. Sounds like a total doss!
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
From what I remember of college, language students spent most of the summer term sitting under trees, reading books. It must have been hell for the ones with hay fever.
I'd say there is a majority for staying pretty close in a/the/arrangement CU, but also to have meaningful immigration controls with the EU. (as an aside I think Sajid has hit the nail on the head this morning, nobody is seriously going to object to more doctors arriving from Singapore, or Canada, or Eithopia to do high paid jobs we want in the NHS. More of this sort of targeted thing please!).
So CU/Controls: Am I 100% happy with that? - no. Could I live with it for now? - yes. ( I think the economics would follow as the world develops and over the years the desirability of an EU/CU would decline anyway).
If we could cross party such a position, it would immensely strengthen our hand with the 27 I feel. I suspect that's flying pig territory. My real doubt is how committed is "official Labour" to restricting FOM? I always get the feeling they'd jump ship on that at the first opportunity.
Again the problem is that we cannot be in 'The' Customs Union without being in the EU and being in 'a' Customs Union puts us at a huge disadvantage as it does Turkey.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
From what I remember of college, language students spent most of the summer term sitting under trees, reading books. It must have been hell for the ones with hay fever.
I did mine in Durham. If sat under a tree for any length of time I was risking fourth degree frostbite.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
Mr. Urquhart, the vast majority of the poor are perfectly law-abiding. For that matter, some criminals are quite wealthy. Police officers making excuses for criminals is ridiculous. Reminds me of the indulgent idiocy after the 2011 looting when Sky interviewed three masked thugs who blamed government policy for the criminality.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
I must admit I found Geology pretty straightforward and enjoyable. But then I did only get a Desmond so that is probably more me than the course/subject
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
The answer is "No", but it is harder to explain the paradox (which you didn't do).
Note that the fallacious argument was made by lawyer in a court of law, and convinced the Jury.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
Are any of them twins?
Who knows? Assume not. They are randomly selected.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
I must admit I found Geology pretty straightforward and enjoyable. But then I did only get a Desmond so that is probably more me than the course/subject
Thank F*ck, I thought I was the only one here with the Archbishop xD
Neither RCS nor David Herdson are sending out Conservative flyers that put in imperceptibly small print that they're from the Conservative Party but instead appears to be from PB. That's the difference.
OGH is regularly invited onto the media as an expert due to this site, this is a partisan advert that pretends to be independent expertise and is really party spin.
First, no one compels you to post here and OGH's record as an LD activist is well known. Second, this is OGH's business and livelihood and he can promote it as he sees fit just as anyone else can if, for example, they offered their premises and facilities free of charge to a group or organisation. OGH has never said he provides his site just as an indulgence for individuals to debate politics nor he has ever claimed it to be wholly independent. If you are bothered that in some oblique way you are endorsing an LD candidate by posting here that's for you to resolve.
Anyone who reads beyond the thread-headers knows the LibDems don't exactly get an easy ride on here.....
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No. It is looking at the problem from the wrong end.
The chances of being killed by your partner are greater than the the chances of being killed by a stranger. The chances of being killed by your partner where your partner already has a history of violence towards you are higher still.
The history of wife-beating may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence to convict but coupled with other evidence - motive, strange behaviour etc - may be.
Neither RCS nor David Herdson are sending out Conservative flyers that put in imperceptibly small print that they're from the Conservative Party but instead appears to be from PB. That's the difference.
OGH is regularly invited onto the media as an expert due to this site, this is a partisan advert that pretends to be independent expertise and is really party spin.
First, no one compels you to post here and OGH's record as an LD activist is well known. Second, this is OGH's business and livelihood and he can promote it as he sees fit just as anyone else can if, for example, they offered their premises and facilities free of charge to a group or organisation. OGH has never said he provides his site just as an indulgence for individuals to debate politics nor he has ever claimed it to be wholly independent. If you are bothered that in some oblique way you are endorsing an LD candidate by posting here that's for you to resolve.
Anyone who reads beyond the thread-headers knows the LibDems don't exactly get an easy ride on here.....
The conflation is to tie the site together with the person. So Mike puts pb.com in his LD letter to credentialise himself. They have conflated this with the site being pro-LD. Analagous to James Dyson: people who buy his vacuum cleaners aren't necessarily Leavers, and nor should anyone come to the conclusion that they are Leavers from the act of them buying a Dyson vacuum cleaner.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No. It is looking at the problem from the wrong end.
The chances of being killed by your partner are greater than the the chances of being killed by a stranger. The chances of being killed by your partner where your partner already has a history of violence towards you are higher still.
The history of wife-beating may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence to convict but coupled with other evidence - motive, strange behaviour etc - may be.
Superb.
Your Royal Statistical Society Gold Medal is in the post.
The probability that Mr Mannion was the murderer, ***given that his wife has been murdered***, is completely different to the probability quoted by the lawyer.
Mr. Urquhart, the vast majority of the poor are perfectly law-abiding. For that matter, some criminals are quite wealthy. Police officers making excuses for criminals is ridiculous. Reminds me of the indulgent idiocy after the 2011 looting when Sky interviewed three masked thugs who blamed government policy for the criminality.
Crime only pays for the wealthy, if it's on a very big scale. Losing your job, or being struck off by your professional body, are far greater deterrents than getting a few months in prison. So, only a fool would risk financial ruin for a paltry return (although, such fools do exist).
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
The answer is "No", but it is harder to explain the paradox (which you didn't do).
Note that the fallacious argument was made by lawyer in a court of law, and convinced the Jury.
23.
Because 23^C_2 = 253.
And (364/365)^253 = 0.4995
Indeed. Counterintuitive for many though. Works well as an icebreaker if you have 30 or more people on some awayday event - get them to arrange themselves along a wall in birthday order. but you can ask for a hands-up in advance if they expect any duplicate birthdays. Gets people moving and talking.
If I am honest, I am not sure I understand the paradox you refer to in your OJ Simpson example. The question that went through my head was what proportion of murdered women whose husbands beat them were murdered by their husbands... I bet that's a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
I must admit I found Geology pretty straightforward and enjoyable. But then I did only get a Desmond so that is probably more me than the course/subject
Thank F*ck, I thought I was the only one here with the Archbishop xD
You're in the same club as Alex Salmond (Economics and Medieval History).
Mr. F, well, quite. Kleptomania was only invented because people couldn't work out why wealthy women were stealing from department stores, and decided it "had to" be a psychological problem rather than being a thieving Thora.
I'd say there is a majority for staying pretty close in a/the/arrangement CU, but also to have meaningful immigration controls with the EU. (as an aside I think Sajid has hit the nail on the head this morning, nobody is seriously going to object to more doctors arriving from Singapore, or Canada, or Eithopia to do high paid jobs we want in the NHS. More of this sort of targeted thing please!).
So CU/Controls: Am I 100% happy with that? - no. Could I live with it for now? - yes. ( I think the economics would follow as the world develops and over the years the desirability of an EU/CU would decline anyway).
If we could cross party such a position, it would immensely strengthen our hand with the 27 I feel. I suspect that's flying pig territory. My real doubt is how committed is "official Labour" to restricting FOM? I always get the feeling they'd jump ship on that at the first opportunity.
Again the problem is that we cannot be in 'The' Customs Union without being in the EU and being in 'a' Customs Union puts us at a huge disadvantage as it does Turkey.
Indeed. It's not great, and over a period of time it may become clearer to more people, shall we say, that that arrangement is not to our long term advantage. But I was trying to triangulate where we might end up now given HoC maths.
I can live with it as a staging post to get out of a load of other issues, and precisely because I think it will become seen as a staging post, that is itself easier to be rid of in future because people won't be clinging to "EU nurse" so much when they see the sky has not actually fallen when we have left for a bit.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
The answer is "No", but it is harder to explain the paradox (which you didn't do).
Note that the fallacious argument was made by lawyer in a court of law, and convinced the Jury.
23.
Because 23^C_2 = 253.
And (364/365)^253 = 0.4995
Indeed. Counterintuitive for many though. Works well as an icebreaker if you have 30 or more people on some awayday event - get them to arrange themselves along a wall in birthday order. but you can ask for a hands-up in advance if they expect any duplicate birthdays. Gets people moving and talking.
If I am honest, I am not sure I understand the paradox you refer to in your OJ Simpson example. The question that went through my head was what proportion of murdered women whose husbands beat them were murdered by their husbands... I bet that's a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
The statistic quoted by the lawyer is the probability that a randomly selected wife-beater will also murder his wife.
But the relevant statistic is a conditional probability.
Given that the wife has been murdered, what is the probability that the wife-beating husband was the murderer. This (as you correctly say) is a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
The answer is "No", but it is harder to explain the paradox (which you didn't do).
Note that the fallacious argument was made by lawyer in a court of law, and convinced the Jury.
23.
Because 23^C_2 = 253.
And (364/365)^253 = 0.4995
Indeed. Counterintuitive for many though. Works well as an icebreaker if you have 30 or more people on some awayday event - get them to arrange themselves along a wall in birthday order. but you can ask for a hands-up in advance if they expect any duplicate birthdays. Gets people moving and talking.
If I am honest, I am not sure I understand the paradox you refer to in your OJ Simpson example. The question that went through my head was what proportion of murdered women whose husbands beat them were murdered by their husbands... I bet that's a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
The statistic quoted by the lawyer is the probability that a randomly selected wife-beater will also murder his wife.
But the relevant statistic is a conditional probability.
Given that the wife has been murdered, what is the probability that the wife-beating husband was the murderer. This (as you correctly say) is a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
I think I got there intuitively. Good example though. (Still doesn't make me think Statisics is more academic than Medicine though. They both have their challenges!)
Mr. F, well, quite. Kleptomania was only invented because people couldn't work out why wealthy women were stealing from department stores, and decided it "had to" be a psychological problem rather than being a thieving Thora.
It's always dangerous to medicalise bad behaviour. But, I can't help thinking there's something wrong mentally, as well as morally, with people who can simply never have enough.
Given the government has not lost a 'meaningful' vote yet on Brexit (policy as opposed to process) in the Commons isn't it highly likely the deal will pass. It will have to get past the Cabinet first - if they ok it why won't MPs.
We have seen far more Labour MPs willing to back the government over the last two days than Tory defectors.
The issue of course is whether not just the EU but the 27 other member states accept it too. FOM for example may not be a big deal for France or Germany but it's a big deal for Eastern and central European member states.
Prince Charles has a Desmond, albeit from the finest university in the world.
J.K Rowling also got a Desmond from Exeter and she did alright.
Still it isn't as good as any degree (classification) from the University of Life.
9.8 on BF seems very short for Saudi this afternoon - not entirely sure they will shorten significantly at any point?
Do please help me here. I've never really got the hang of this betting thing (and since I don't understand politics, feck knows why I bother with this site but that's another story!)
Is the object here to place a bet in Saudi Arabia, not in the expectation that they might win but in the hope that at some point during the afternoon (e.g. if it's nil-nil at half-time) their odds will shorten and the bet can be sold at a profit?
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No. It is looking at the problem from the wrong end.
The chances of being killed by your partner are greater than the the chances of being killed by a stranger. The chances of being killed by your partner where your partner already has a history of violence towards you are higher still.
The history of wife-beating may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence to convict but coupled with other evidence - motive, strange behaviour etc - may be.
Superb.
Your Royal Statistical Society Gold Medal is in the post.
The probability that Mr Mannion was the murderer, ***given that his wife has been murdered***, is completely different to the probability quoted by the lawyer.
I think you may have misunderstood the role of defence counsel in our adversarial system.
Mr. Urquhart, the vast majority of the poor are perfectly law-abiding. For that matter, some criminals are quite wealthy. Police officers making excuses for criminals is ridiculous. Reminds me of the indulgent idiocy after the 2011 looting when Sky interviewed three masked thugs who blamed government policy for the criminality.
Poverty is a lame excuse. There was far more poverty, No NHS, negligible welfare and limited public services in the 1930s - but there was far less crime.
Sorry bad people commit violent crimes - and they are more likely to do so if society allows them to get away with it and there is no peer and community and parental pressure to say don't do it. And many criminals come from households where there is no father to provide moral guidance and structure and discipline as well as a role model to young men.
The government has taken over the traditional role of fathers in many cases - and they don't do such a good job of it on the whole.
Mr. F, vielleicht. There's a never-ending drive to medicalise/pathologise every tiny quirk of human behaviour, and I think that in itself is rather unhealthy.
Mr. Urquhart, the vast majority of the poor are perfectly law-abiding. For that matter, some criminals are quite wealthy. Police officers making excuses for criminals is ridiculous. Reminds me of the indulgent idiocy after the 2011 looting when Sky interviewed three masked thugs who blamed government policy for the criminality.
I actually have a theory that some of the problems we are seeing in London now has some correlation to totally wishy washy response by the plod to those riots.
Firstly, we know that gangs quickly organized and coordinated (often with other gangs) to undertake widespread criminality and it was clear the police were not to be feared. Many of those involved have grown up with zero fear, emboldened by the fact that authorities were powerless, and these individuals will now run the gangs. Add in the mix all the reporting of police numbers down, them struggling to cope, and the idiotic comments of those that run the MET.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No. It is looking at the problem from the wrong end.
The chances of being killed by your partner are greater than the the chances of being killed by a stranger. The chances of being killed by your partner where your partner already has a history of violence towards you are higher still.
The history of wife-beating may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence to convict but coupled with other evidence - motive, strange behaviour etc - may be.
Superb.
Your Royal Statistical Society Gold Medal is in the post.
The probability that Mr Mannion was the murderer, ***given that his wife has been murdered***, is completely different to the probability quoted by the lawyer.
I think you may have misunderstood the role of defence counsel in our adversarial system.
The point is that the Jury & the prosecuting counsel were taken in by the fallacious argument.
OJ Simpson's defence lawyer had the right to make the argument, but it should have been swiftly dismantled by the prosecution.
The statistic quoted by the lawyer is the probability that a randomly selected wife-beater will also murder his wife.
But the relevant statistic is a conditional probability.
Given that the wife has been murdered, what is the probability that the wife-beating husband was the murderer. This (as you correctly say) is a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
Which of course makes a mockery of the idea that juries shouldn't hear about prior convictions.
Except... that if juries could, then the temptation for the police to round up the usual suspects would be even stronger than at present.
The law has a pretty awful history with statistics (and expert witnesses). Sally Clark's tragic case being perhaps the epitome.
A problem for BenPointer (with acknowledgment to OJ Simpson).
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
No. It is looking at the problem from the wrong end.
The chances of being killed by your partner are greater than the the chances of being killed by a stranger. The chances of being killed by your partner where your partner already has a history of violence towards you are higher still.
The history of wife-beating may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence to convict but coupled with other evidence - motive, strange behaviour etc - may be.
Superb.
Your Royal Statistical Society Gold Medal is in the post.
The probability that Mr Mannion was the murderer, ***given that his wife has been murdered***, is completely different to the probability quoted by the lawyer.
I think you may have misunderstood the role of defence counsel in our adversarial system.
Well, I understand both, being both a lawyer and having studied statistics as part of my economics and politics degree. It is certainly true that many lawyers and defence and prosecution experts and judges do not understand probabilities hence some of the miscarriages of justice we have seen.
The statistic quoted by the lawyer is the probability that a randomly selected wife-beater will also murder his wife.
But the relevant statistic is a conditional probability.
Given that the wife has been murdered, what is the probability that the wife-beating husband was the murderer. This (as you correctly say) is a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
Which of course makes a mockery of the idea that juries shouldn't hear about prior convictions.
Except... that if juries could, then the temptation for the police to round up the usual suspects would be even stronger than at present.
The law has a pretty awful history with statistics (and expert witnesses). Sally Clark's tragic case being perhaps the epitome.
I am very negative about Prof Sir Roy Meadows.
He made a very basic sixth form statistical error that really did amount to gross professional misconduct in an "expert witness".
Just listened to the podcast. If you consider reversing Brexit to be the most important political campaign of your life (as I do) then the last few days have been disappointing.
A week ago Boris and J R-M's stars were on the wane and Tory Remainers were starting to assert themselves. Brexit was going so badly that the built in Remain majority in Parliament looked like they might mobilize in the national interest. If May was forced out she wouldn't be replaced by one of the headbangers but by Javid. So the fear of the lunatics taking over the asylum was severely reduced.
Compromises could be made. The wild ones-Boris Fox and the Bulldog-could be fired and the sensible majority could reassert itself. A period of quiet reflection would very likely lead to BINO or even a moratorium while we reflected on where we were going leading to another referendum in a few years time
But then yesterday it became obvious that Corbyn the treacherous bastard is a Leaver. With the leader of the biggest parliamentary block of Remainers at war with his own troops we're back to square one.
Corbyn wants the Tories to own BREXIT but the PLP suicide squad cant help themselves.
So what exactly is his Brexit plan?
Do nothing to stop it, let the tories rip themselves to pieces and come in afterwards. I'd have thought that'd been obvious for a long time
Do you think the country will be impressed by that sort of passive opportunism? I don't.
The thing about passive opportunism is that the casual observer doesn't notice it either way. The country will neither be impressed nor repelled.
Everyone thinks their own field of undergraduate study is the most challenging. I therefore conclude that Modern Languages is the most demanding degree. It involves a phenomenal amount of reading, memorisation and mastery of four distinct skills (reading, writing, speaking and listening). I have never worked so hard before or after.
I love history and am proud of my degree, but several other subjects are much harder.
Trump could well be gone in 3 years or so, and certainly gone in 7 or so. I wouldn't make a long term decision like that just on the basis of one office holder.
I would imagine if Trump gets re-elected, he'd make a play for revoking the 22nd amendment. Still, he can't live forever even if he is very healthy - probably the healthiest person he knows.
Trump would be 82 at the end of a third term as President. I think he'd rather handover to Ivanka.
However, he should definitely make a move to revoke the 22nd amendment if he wins re-election. The Democrats would be traumatised already and the possibility of a third Trump term would scare the bejesus out of them. It would distract an enormous amount of Democrat opposition effort and media attention from the other, more consequential, things that he wanted to do. And it would prevent all the lame duck nonsense that second-term Presidents suffer from.
Interesting to think whether without the 22nd, Obama would have defeated Trump? I suspect he would.
Obama would have crushed Trump. Obama was an incredible campaigner who would have put the effort in to the mid western states.
Comments
I never denigrated medicine.
After the problem appeared in the Parade magazine, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong. Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy. Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result.
So statistics can be an intellectual challenge for the best brains.
As regards statistics, let's see. I can give an example of a famous doctor who was so smart he thought he understood statistics, and he sent people to jail.
He sent Sally Clark to jail.
He sent Trupti Patel to jail.
He sent Angela Canning to jail.
He sent Ian and Angela Gay to jail.
All verdicts overturned eventually, but many lives ruined.
.
And all because he didn't understand statistics -- according to you, a doctor is so brilliant that a little bit of statistics should be easy for him to grasp.
However, he should definitely make a move to revoke the 22nd amendment if he wins re-election. The Democrats would be traumatised already and the possibility of a third Trump term would scare the bejesus out of them. It would distract an enormous amount of Democrat opposition effort and media attention from the other, more consequential, things that he wanted to do. And it would prevent all the lame duck nonsense that second-term Presidents suffer from.
You are right to say that NATO was explicitly set up to defend against an aggressive and very powerful Soviet Union, which has now largely gone, but neither has the Russian threat gone nor have strategic threats to Western democracies globally.
In time, I think it’s far more likely that NATO would evolve into a GDTO (global defence treaty organisation) than be wound up, including nations like Australia, New Zealand and Japan as a start. And, eventually, possibly India as well.
Just conferred with my wife (qualified nurse and History MA) and she, as ever, has cut through this by pointing out it's a silly (typically male) thing to try to grade things on a linear scale which just cannot be judged that way.
She's convinced me that it's utterly pointless trying to say that one discipline is more or less academic than another; the skills and knowledge required to be an excllent doctor are different from those required to be an excellent historian, linguist, programmer, statistician etc. etc.
But culture can be changed. Look at seat belts, smoking, drink driving; all examples where the culture has changed.
I agree Obama would've beaten Trump. Biden would've too.
Mrs Mannion is found stabbed to death in her garden. Mr Peter Mannion is behaving strangely after her death and is considered a suspect.
The police discover that Mr Mannion has a history of wife-beating. The prosecution advances this as evidence in the subsequent trial that Mr Mannion is guilty of murder.
"Oh no", says his well-paid and well-housed lawyer, Mr Antifrank. "Statistically, only one in a thousand wife-beaters go on to murder their wives. So the wife-beating is not strong evidence at all. In fact, the chance of Mr Mannion having murdered his wife is only one in thousand. You must acquit. My client is innocent."
Well, Mr BenPointer, is the lawyer right?
Chemical Engineering and PPE on the other hand...
I note Alex Salmond was an economist.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/14/rising-is-symptom-of-inequality-says-senior-met-chief
For better or for worse.
Here's one for you: how many people do you have to have in a room for the chances of any two of them sharing the same birthday (day and month) to be greater than 50%?
Note that the fallacious argument was made by lawyer in a court of law, and convinced the Jury.
23.
Because 23^C_2 = 253.
And (364/365)^253 = 0.4995
Are any of them twins?
The chances of being killed by your partner are greater than the the chances of being killed by a stranger. The chances of being killed by your partner where your partner already has a history of violence towards you are higher still.
The history of wife-beating may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence to convict but coupled with other evidence - motive, strange behaviour etc - may be.
Or something.
Your Royal Statistical Society Gold Medal is in the post.
The probability that Mr Mannion was the murderer, ***given that his wife has been murdered***, is completely different to the probability quoted by the lawyer.
If I am honest, I am not sure I understand the paradox you refer to in your OJ Simpson example. The question that went through my head was what proportion of murdered women whose husbands beat them were murdered by their husbands... I bet that's a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
I can live with it as a staging post to get out of a load of other issues, and precisely because I think it will become seen as a staging post, that is itself easier to be rid of in future because people won't be clinging to "EU nurse" so much when they see the sky has not actually fallen when we have left for a bit.
But the relevant statistic is a conditional probability.
Given that the wife has been murdered, what is the probability that the wife-beating husband was the murderer. This (as you correctly say) is a lot higher than 1 in 1000.
J.K Rowling also got a Desmond from Exeter and she did alright.
Still it isn't as good as any degree (classification) from the University of Life.
We have seen far more Labour MPs willing to back the government over the last two days than Tory defectors.
The issue of course is whether not just the EU but the 27 other member states accept it too. FOM for example may not be a big deal for France or Germany but it's a big deal for Eastern and central European member states.
Is the object here to place a bet in Saudi Arabia, not in the expectation that they might win but in the hope that at some point during the afternoon (e.g. if it's nil-nil at half-time) their odds will shorten and the bet can be sold at a profit?
Sorry bad people commit violent crimes - and they are more likely to do so if society allows them to get away with it and there is no peer and community and parental pressure to say don't do it. And many criminals come from households where there is no father to provide moral guidance and structure and discipline as well as a role model to young men.
The government has taken over the traditional role of fathers in many cases - and they don't do such a good job of it on the whole.
NEW THREAD
Firstly, we know that gangs quickly organized and coordinated (often with other gangs) to undertake widespread criminality and it was clear the police were not to be feared. Many of those involved have grown up with zero fear, emboldened by the fact that authorities were powerless, and these individuals will now run the gangs. Add in the mix all the reporting of police numbers down, them struggling to cope, and the idiotic comments of those that run the MET.
As a criminal, what do you have to worry about?
OJ Simpson's defence lawyer had the right to make the argument, but it should have been swiftly dismantled by the prosecution.
Except... that if juries could, then the temptation for the police to round up the usual suspects would be even stronger than at present.
The law has a pretty awful history with statistics (and expert witnesses). Sally Clark's tragic case being perhaps the epitome.
He made a very basic sixth form statistical error that really did amount to gross professional misconduct in an "expert witness".
He should have been struck off.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j5ek/drsi