HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 427 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Posts: 342
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
ok, I do not see major disagreement, except details.

1. when the topic is not emotional, it's not a matter of shutting out evidence that does not agree with your beliefs; you can accept it and still maintain your belief. Look at the matter of negative tests by Armstrong. Based on circumstantial evidence (the pattern of riding, rumors in l'Equipe, the andreu testimony) you could have formed a 95% certainty that LA doped even in the early 2000s. Now you are told that LA has tested negative. Let's say the test is negative in 99% of clean riders, and positive in maybe 10% of (careful) riders who dope. Applying the Bayes theorem, you should still be 90% sure that LA dopes, even accounting for the negative. (and I'm not bringing in the manipulation of the testing system)

2. you seem to only trust a probability statement based on a statistical analysis (eg frequency of disease). So you are a frequentist. But others accept subjective probabilities (the bayesians). In the case of LA above, you do not have 1000 LA clones to base your beliefs on, you have to make a subjective assessment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Posts: 1224
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
but Bayesians don't know anything about cognition. belief is not a product of statistical probability.

_________________
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:24 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7309
Location: San Francisco, CA
basilic wrote:
ok, I do not see major disagreement, except details.

1. when the topic is not emotional, it's not a matter of shutting out evidence that does not agree with your beliefs; you can accept it and still maintain your belief. Look at the matter of negative tests by Armstrong. Based on circumstantial evidence (the pattern of riding, rumors in l'Equipe, the andreu testimony) you could have formed a 95% certainty that LA doped even in the early 2000s. Now you are told that LA has tested negative. Let's say the test is negative in 99% of clean riders, and positive in maybe 10% of (careful) riders who dope. Applying the Bayes theorem, you should still be 90% sure that LA dopes, even accounting for the negative. (and I'm not bringing in the manipulation of the testing system)

2. you seem to only trust a probability statement based on a statistical analysis (eg frequency of disease). So you are a frequentist. But others accept subjective probabilities (the bayesians). In the case of LA above, you do not have 1000 LA clones to base your beliefs on, you have to make a subjective assessment.


Excellent analysis. But I suspect an error.

Simplifying down for my own benefit:

before test results:
95% chance: Armstrong doped
5% chance: Armstrong clean

Additional information: Armstrong tested negative

Chances of various results before knowing test results:

(95% Armstrong doped) (10% testing negative if doped) = 9.5%
(95% Armstrong doped) (90% testing positive if doped) = 85.5%
(5% Armstrong clean) (99% testing negative if clean) = 4.95%
(5% Armstrong clean) (1% testing positive if clean) = 0.05%

These sum to 100%. But I now know the test results. I thus care only about the negative probabilities:

(95% Armstrong doped) (10% testing negative if doped) = 9.5%
(5% Armstrong clean) (99% testing negative if clean) = 4.95%

I thus get a revised 65.7% chance that Armstrong doped.

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
Selling SPD-SL 7900 pedals: 248 grams


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 4992
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
If you are Bayesian, and believe basilic's data, and don''t make a calculation error, then the probability that Armstrong doped, given the negative doping test result, is 94.53% .

P(A|B) denotes probability of A given B.

The calculation is:
P(doped|negative test result)=
P(negative test result|doped)*P(prior belief he doped)/{P(negative test result|doped)*P(prior belief he doped)+P(negative test result|didn't dope)*P(prior belief not doped)}
= 0.9*0.95/{0.9*0.95+0.99*0.05}=0.9453=94.53% .


Optional Bonus Reading:
If you keep everything as is, but vary just P(negative test result|doped), then the resulting P(doped|negative test result) varies over the possible range of a low of 94.48% when P(negative test result|doped) = 100%, to a high of 100% when P(negative test result|doped) = 0% .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:24 pm 
Offline
Formerly known as wassertreter

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Posts: 1744
Location: Pedal Square
That's all very cool and interesting, but he interviewed with cyclingnews now, I think we can close this book :mrgreen:

_________________
Bikes: Raw Ti, 650b flatbar CX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:05 am
Posts: 342
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
HT2 wins - and guys, you are all too nice to indulge me in this probabilistic stuff.
To revise beliefs in light of evidence, the Bayes theorem says this (and the theorem is true regardless of beliefs, even non-bayesians agree):
posterior odds = likelihood ratio * prior odds
So prior odds of doping = 0.95/0.05 = 19
Likelihood ratio of a negative test = 0.90/0.99 = 0.91
posterior odds= 17.3
posterior probability = odds/(1+odds) = 0.9453
(so I was wrong doing it without a calculator previously)

Now this says what a rational person would/should think, not how people actually think. I think this was swinter's point, fair enough.

But I think the point is evidence alone is not the final answer. When evidence is weak (such as a negative test), not changing you belief is quite correct. When evidence is stronger (such as a positive test, which in my example would have a LR of 0.10/0.01, or 10), it really depends where you start from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:42 pm 
Offline
Formerly known as wassertreter

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Posts: 1744
Location: Pedal Square
basilic wrote:
But I think the point is evidence alone is not the final answer. When evidence is weak (such as a negative test), not changing you belief is quite correct. When evidence is stronger (such as a positive test, which in my example would have a LR of 0.10/0.01, or 10), it really depends where you start from.

Evidence belongs to the real world. Belief to the internet. Better not mix them.

_________________
Bikes: Raw Ti, 650b flatbar CX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 4992
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
In "PRO" Cycling Discussion, ultyguy wrote:
McQuaid calling in his IOC buddies for help against WADA.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-writes-to-ioc-members-for-support-after-spat-with-wada

I'm going to call on the rest of you corrupt bastards to help this corrupt bastard fend off WADA, ok?

Here is the UCI Press Release with referenced emails linked: Press release: UCI releases Fahey letters in response to WADA’s ‘blatant and aggressive’ untruths


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Posts: 4882
Location: New York
Right now Landis has a shot at riding pro

_________________
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7446
Location: Los Angeles
I think it is perfectly fine to have a difference of opinion, if not altogether welcome.
However, that being said, I believe it is helpful to all participating that should a person carry a difference of opinion or perspective, they will also do their part by not reiterating a prior point of discussion in the same topic/thread that has already been covered ad nausea. Even if that conversation was not completely concluded, that it has been discussed to a point of circularity or impass means that it should be avoided in the current topic/thread/discussion in the future. Should a considerable amount of time pass, or the thread be covering an entirely new subject, then it is fine to bring in past arguments from a prior subject/topic to the current one.
Bringing a new thought or new perspective to the conversation is welcome.

Let's not regurgitate what has already been passed through our bowels.

_________________
Exp001


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:40 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7310
Location: Geeeelong!
What a piece.

Bill normally grates a little too much, but this is stunning.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/890 ... d-question

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7309
Location: San Francisco, CA
Okay -- my math was correct, my reading was not. I thought you'd written a doped rider had a 10% chance of being negative. You'd actually written a 10% chance of being positive. Since it was many tests over which Armstrong was negative, 10% chance for accumulated positive may be realistic, but still seems a stretch. But then that's where UCI cooperation comes in.

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
Selling SPD-SL 7900 pedals: 248 grams


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Posts: 1224
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
In case people missed the Rasmussen press conference.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/rasmussen-blows-whistle-decade-dope-135249891.html

Guess what? He was never in Mexico.

_________________
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:35 am
Posts: 4882
Location: New York
Old news about Rasmussen. Davide Cassani had seen him in Italy (having an affair?) when he said he was in Mexico.

_________________
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:27 am
Posts: 1224
Location: Grosse Pointe, MI
of course it's old news. (apparently, sarcasm and irony don't read well on the web.)

the point was that he came clean and did so with the Danish cycling authorities and in a news conference and not on Oprah.

note the comment toward the end of the story about Contador and Saxo Bank.

_________________
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:00 am 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 427 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Rapha partners with Mellow Johnny's aka Lance Armstrong

in Cycle Chat

Posix1b

9

1405

Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:08 pm

sawyer View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Lance Armstrong: The Downfall of a Champion - Book Excerpt

in Cycle Chat

HammerTime2

14

1348

Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:23 pm

H0RSE View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. "The Armstrong Lie" movie

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

in Cycle Chat

tymon_tm

36

1933

Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:08 pm

tymon_tm View the latest post


It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:51 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB