[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
[Profile/Gallery]
, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:54:58
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
Please re-read my post. Every paragraph points out an assumption that is behind such a test, and then proceeds to demolish it. That's exactly how the post was structured. Not sure why you got lost after the first two paragraphs. Who knows, perhaps reaching "concept retention" buffer limit? The average IQ=100 person can juggle 7 concepts at the same time before short-term memory buffer overflow . . . just kidding with you; I'm not a big believer in IQ Score either, but IQ / aptitude certainly vary from person to person, significantly, yet that is not a basis for eugenics, as everyone has different aptitude / specialty in different ways. A professional football player able to sack hard and run fast is much more valuable in the current market place than a geek with photographic memory who can memorize an entire bible on first reading. Then there are the everyday multi-taskers who can drive and talk on the phone.
Your large enough sample size argument makes no sense as a counter argument to my point that the same person can derive different value from the presence of a passenger/phone depending on the duration of the journey.
The medical trial analogy also makes no sense in the field of law. A drug showing efficacy on 25% patients suffering from a particular type of cancer is a wonder drug; convicting a defendant based on 3 out of 12 jurors would be far worse than even a kangroo trial. Even a majority is not enough to convict. Heck, even a test positive of 88% (11 out of 12) is not enough to convict. In order to convict a person using cell phone as prima facie guilt of being distracted and incapable of operating his/her vehicle, you need to prove everyone is incapable of driving while on the phone. There is no way you can prove that.
More importantly, the vast increase of cell phone usage, and widespread of usage during driving, co-inciding with a decline in accident and fatalities rates is prima facie proof of one of two possiblities:
1. The use of cell phone is positive to driving safety, even if the exact mechanism may be beyond your comprehension;
2. The negative impact of cell phone use on driving is insignificant to negligible.
posted by 24.91.39...
, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:32:40
, Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:43:48, Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:56:30, Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:36:50, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:38:42, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:22:31, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:05:11, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:04:22, Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:54:58, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:42:45, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:01:15, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:01:53, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 06:36:40, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:48:41, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:36:11, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:39:06, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:31:03, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:45:45, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:56:05, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:57:39, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:33:06, Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:46:24
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
