Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
You know, you refuse to accept MrWookie specifically stated the website methodology, and not about a specific stat, and are lying about that context. I honestly don't know how you could dispute that.
We've been over this last night. You pointed out how important context is, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
Whatever...change the context of the conversation to make it mean whatever you want it to mean.
Right, changing the context is bad, let's not change the context. And what was the context of you citing mynamestats.com?
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
Quote:
The race and Hispanic origin distribution of the people with the name JAMAL is 60.1% White, 2.8% Hispanic origin, 22.4% Black, 7.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, 6.3% Two or More Races, and 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native. These figures should be considered only as a rough estimate. The purpose of this graph is to compare the name's specific race and Hispanic origin distribution to the distribution in the general population of the US.
.
https://www.mynamestats.com/First-Na...MAL/index.html
Right, it was for racial name data. And why did Wookie ask you about the methodology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
You cited a paper that showed 95% of like 8,000 survey respondents classifying "Jamal" as black and now you're sitting here like "hurr durr actually my very own paper is trash now that it's making me look dumb". LOL itslyinginvegas!
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
I'm not saying it's trash. As the paper states, these names have not been rigorously tested using well-developed methodology, including that survey you are clinging to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
What is the more rigorous methodology of mynamestats.com?
Right: you disputed the methodology of the paper you cited (about racial name data), so Wookie asked about the methodology of the site you liked better (for racial name data).
The context of this entire conversation about mynamestats.com was about racial name data. You only started pretending otherwise when you realized that you had faceplanted for the 12th time in a row, and cited some random, bogus website that was your first hit on Google because you were so eager to distance yourself from faceplant #11, the scholarly research
you cited in this very thread that all of a sudden you didn't like so much when it made you look dumb. Now here we are, on approximately #17, after you've told several more lies about posts in this thread that anyone can go back and read (my favorite was probably
this one, where you lied and pretended you had cited other data from mynamestats.com, before being forced to admit it came from a different website. That was hilarious!).