ADVERTISEMENT

OT: For "critical thinkers", why NFL viewership is down

His data is irrefutable, but his conclusion based on his data absolutely is NOT irrefutable.

Because he lacks critical thinking skills, he doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation.

Laughable - allow me to educate you.

Here is how it works. If a correlation doesn't exist, then there can be no causation. So, the fact that the data shows that there is no correlation between poor behavior and viewership means there is no causal factor. BUT if there were a correlation between the two, as there is between Kaepernick's actions and viewership, that is NOT NECESSARILY proof that one caused the other.

The data being discussed was of the first type - establishing that no correlation (and therefore no causation) existed. The logic and reasoning was flawless.

Now, it is true that we could propose a time series relationship or other multivariate relationship between multiple factors, and that the impact could be .........but I think you already have enough to reflect upon.
 
Here is a question:

Why are white people just so stupid?

You need to pay attention to things as they are written not as you twist them to be.

Please stop being stupid.

The effective, cowardly reply is to simply say "I was kidding. Can't you take a joke?" That's typically how it is done.

Why don't you try that?
 
His data is irrefutable, but his conclusion based on his data absolutely is NOT irrefutable.

Because he lacks critical thinking skills, he doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation.

nonsense, Internet Explorer saves lives!!

correlation-vs-causation.jpg
 
nonsense, Internet Explorer saves lives!!

correlation-vs-causation.jpg

You are an idiot. I just explained that while correlation does not equal causation, a LACK of CORRELATION does mean a LACK of CAUSATION.

The lack of correlation between Ray Rice/ Rae Carruth / Aaron Hernandez activity and viewership does mean that there is no causal relationship. HOWEVER, if there were a correlation between their activities and viewership that would NOT necessarily demonstrate a causal relationship.

Geez, read the post above and learn. I may have a lesson on multi-variate response surfaces next, assuming you can get these basic principles straight.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly the inability for more then 3 plays to be played in a row without either a penalty being called, or something being reviewed, or a commercial brake has really started to make the game tedious to watch.

I think moving the umpire to the other side of the LOS has added a good deal to the uptick in holding calls during the game, add that to the ever increasing list of what is a personal foul, or taunting, or unsportsmanlike, penalty, this years point of emphasis it seems on offensive PI, you get the feeling that at any point some rando 15 yard penalty is going to swing the game because of "reasons".
 
  • Like
Reactions: TenerHallTerror
His data is irrefutable, but his conclusion based on his data absolutely is NOT irrefutable.

Because he lacks critical thinking skills, he doesn't seem to understand that correlation is not the same thing as causation.

Fish, you are meaningless on this board too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmithtonLion
Fish, you are meaningless on this board too.

Knox, take your time to read the entire post. I have to pat myself on the back here - This has got to be one of the worst beatings ever administered by one poster to a group of liberals.
 
Yeah, except it isn't myopic if the reason is completely disproved by the data. "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts"

Cool quote dude. Too bad it has nothing at all to do with what I posted.

>>
Agree. If people are tuning out because of that but not because of murderers and domestic violence then some people need to re adjust their moral compass.
There is a litany of reasons viewership is down and many of us listed them. If some refuse to consider them and remain myopic then that's on them.<<

Apparently all that "Critical Thinking" doesn't allow you to stay on topic.:rolleyes:
 
I just caught an article that suggested the dip in viewership is IN PART a result of the trend to cut cable.

Which explains my family. They have all dropped cable in favor of streaming and they don't watch any live sports.

good point. I've also seen and heard a lot of Millineals are cutting cable along with car ownership, especially those that live in big cities.
Its a new world all the way around.
 
first of all, this thread is solely intended for critical thinkers. if you do not have a critical thinking club card, you cannot read this thread. I am teaching you critical thinking skills because there are too many people today who will cherry pick data to support their confirmation bias. I do not do that.

I have a degree in engineering from Penn State, which means I am much much much much smarter than people who do not. that's a scientific fact I learned freshman year, you dum dums!!

So on to our critical thinking exercise to address why I believe that a man silently kneeling on the sideline has offended so many good and true patriots of the greatest nation on earth!!! and I am talking about USA USA USA! you thought I meant Russia since they won an election this year. FOOLS!!!

After reading several different articles on the subject from the biased liberal media, I can only conclude (logically of course) that they are covering up the "Kaepernick effect" . . . because most of them cite reasons like the recent national election, the Cubs world series run, peak saturation of TV markets, rapidly evolving alternative markets, a lack of iconic players, reduction on the quality of play (especially in larger markets), and a host of more reasonable explanations for this down tick in viewership.

My superior critical thinking skills can only lead me to believe that these sensible and reasonable explanations MUST BE WRONG since they do not conform with my pre-conceived world view and outrage!! :eek:

Now I will post 17 links and obnoxious graphs from dubious sources to support my arguments. thus endeth the lesson!!

For the win article

Sports Illustrated

The Atlantic
While I enjoyed your post you made one critical error, as do most others who never strapped on a helmet. It's not "kneeling" it's "taking a knee." There's a big difference.

Kneeling assumes you're in prayer. Taking a knee means you're resting from practice or a game. Again big difference. No way does CK mean to be in prayer when he "takes a knee," but rather wants to appease the masses who don't know better and those who say he's "kneeling" help him in that endeavor.

While you were studying I was strapping on said helmet and perhaps that's why I don't have a degree in engineering from PSU.
 
While I enjoyed your post you made one critical error, as do most others who never strapped on a helmet. It's not "kneeling" it's "taking a knee." There's a big difference.

Kneeling assumes you're in prayer. Taking a knee means you're resting from practice or a game. Again big difference. No way does CK mean to be in prayer when he "takes a knee," but rather wants to appease the masses who don't know better and those who say he's "kneeling" help him in that endeavor.

While you were studying I was strapping on said helmet and perhaps that's why I don't have a degree in engineering from PSU.

TakeaKnee_400x.jpg
 
I'm not sure what critical thinking is needed. Seton Hall asked people why and they said bc the protest. End of discussion. No other data needed unless you have a similar public opinion poll that shows otherwise.

How some of you forget whatever your reason may be, you are not the "average fan". Not with your fancy engineering degree and critical thinking skills. All those people in the fly over states don't agree with you and their pedigree is quite different than yours.
 
I'm not sure what critical thinking is needed. Seton Hall asked people why and they said bc the protest. End of discussion. No other data needed unless you have a similar public opinion poll that shows otherwise.

How some of you forget whatever your reason may be, you are not the "average fan". Not with your fancy engineering degree and critical thinking skills. All those people in the fly over states don't agree with you and their pedigree is quite different than yours.

841 phone calls can't be wrong
 
first of all, this thread is solely intended for critical thinkers. if you do not have a critical thinking club card, you cannot read this thread. I am teaching you critical thinking skills because there are too many people today who will cherry pick data to support their confirmation bias. I do not do that.

I have a degree in engineering from Penn State, which means I am much much much much smarter than people who do not. that's a scientific fact I learned freshman year, you dum dums!!

So on to our critical thinking exercise to address why I believe that a man silently kneeling on the sideline has offended so many good and true patriots of the greatest nation on earth!!! and I am talking about USA USA USA! you thought I meant Russia since they won an election this year. FOOLS!!!

After reading several different articles on the subject from the biased liberal media, I can only conclude (logically of course) that they are covering up the "Kaepernick effect" . . . because most of them cite reasons like the recent national election, the Cubs world series run, peak saturation of TV markets, rapidly evolving alternative markets, a lack of iconic players, reduction on the quality of play (especially in larger markets), and a host of more reasonable explanations for this down tick in viewership.

My superior critical thinking skills can only lead me to believe that these sensible and reasonable explanations MUST BE WRONG since they do not conform with my pre-conceived world view and outrage!! :eek:

Now I will post 17 links and obnoxious graphs from dubious sources to support my arguments. thus endeth the lesson!!

For the win article

Sports Illustrated

The Atlantic

The outrage expressed over Colin Kaepernick affair is easily dismissed, in its entirety, with three words: Conservative Political Correctness. Sorry, your fake patriotism is bullshit and you ought to shut up. Nobody has to follow any flag etiquette or any rules related to Flag Folding or Saluting or Worship. It is all for show.
 
The outrage expressed over Colin Kaepernick affair is easily dismissed, in its entirety, with three words: Conservative Political Correctness. Sorry, your fake patriotism is bullshit and you ought to shut up. Nobody has to follow any flag etiquette or any rules related to Flag Folding or Saluting or Worship. It is all for show.

Colin Kaepernick is dismissed because he's an attention seeking clown.

Get it right Larry.
 
Colin Kaepernick is dismissed because he's an attention seeking clown.

Get it right Larry.
I got it right. Flag etiquette is con PC. I am sure, as an avowed opponent of PC, you see it for what it is, and are happy to show contempt for the feelings others have about the issue.
BTW, there are lots of attention seeking clowns who are very prominent these days. It is hardly disqualifying.
 
I got it right. Flag etiquette is con PC. I am sure, as an avowed opponent of PC, you see it for what it is, and are happy to show contempt for the feelings others have about the issue.
BTW, there are lots of attention seeking clowns who are very prominent these days. It is hardly disqualifying.

Speed the change Larry.
 
Don't start arguing about what is "is"?
Right. And don't start pretending you were not the one to bring CK's personality into it. Would not have mattered who flaunted flag etiquette so long as they were famous and the con PC crowd could whip up some kind of cheap sideshow out of it.
 
I know more about sample size than you do

OK, you are full of it. There's no way you have an engineering degree from PSU. Even an idiot with say an Industrial Engineering degree knows that SD(P) = SQRT[P(1-P)/N],

Come on man! And thus the standard deviation on the probability of a "KC response" is something ridiculously small like Sqrt(0.56*(1-0.56) / 841) ~ 0.017, so at 2SD, we have P=56% +/-3.4% at 2 SDs.

Come on man. You don't even have to do the math, you could have just read the article, which shows the margin of error at 3.4%, which is what you get when you take a 95% confidence interval on the statistic at P=56%

Even people who don't know statistics generally know that if the sample is representative, a sample of around 1000 is usually good enough.

What kind of an engineer are you?
 
Last edited:
He is a sanitation engineer. The worst kind of person to engage on the topic of critual thinking. Or any topic. Just point to the can and tell him to hurry up about it.
 
Right. And don't start pretending you were not the one to bring CK's personality into it. Would not have mattered who flaunted flag etiquette so long as they were famous and the con PC crowd could whip up some kind of cheap sideshow out of it.

Get to work on something meaningful Larry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmithtonLion
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT