Interesting.
I don’t recall ever reading Wiki. It’s not a favorite source.
I learned my stuff about TYPE I AND TYPE II errors around 1966 in my BA degree program. Of course, the PhD program refreshed that learning. And my Dissertation Chairman was masterful about such issues.
Accusing me of B.S. and a fixation does NOT remove the hazard to naysayers that their doing back flips to avoid a TYPE I error results in landing them automatically in the lap of a TYPE II ERROR.
But, hey, lots of folks are statistically challenged. It’s not even my strength.
However, I am well aware of the inexorable relationship dynamics between avoiding a TYPE I ERROR SO INTENSELY, SO MINDLESSLY THAT ONE AUTOMATICALLY MORE OR LESS INSURES A TYPE II ERROR.
And, PLEASE be my guest. CONTINUE to be clueless about TYPE II ERRORS. It will make the shock all the more humorous . . . or sad . . . when it comes.
A lot of naysayers will likely need reconstructive jaw surgery.
Ah well. At least some were warned.
It’s a shame that one can read even the simplicity of Wiki and come away abjectly ignorant about TYPE I AND TYPE II ERRORS. Amazing.
But then, maybe it’s a practiced, habitual, learned ignorance in order to avoid the responsibility of making choices and being accountable for them. Hadn’t thought of that. HMMMMmmmmmmm Would fit a lot of naysayers’ personae, alright.
Hmmmmm . . . what would cause such a practiced, habitual, learned ignorance . . . ahhhhh, yes, the old perfectionistic parenting thing . . . probably coupled with some level of ATTACHMENT DISORDER . . . resulting in . . .
drum roll . . .
an overwhelming need to DENY; DANCE FASTER; DISMISS; RIDICULE . . . ETC. anything which doesn’t fit one’s preconceived notions; anything which doesn’t fit one’s pseudo-tidy little boxes of comforting familiarity and pseudo stability. Bullys demonstrate such mentalities and dynamics on school yards all over the world daily.
—soooooooooooooooooooo IMPRESSIVE.
—soooooooooooooooooooo MATURE.
—soooooooooooooooooooo ERUDITE.
—soooooooooooooooooooo KNOWLEDGEABLE.
—soooooooooooooooooooo BRILLIANT.
—soooooooooooooooooooo feeble.
You used it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2166563/posts?q=1&;page=614#614
For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:PRIMARY. Primary source[1][2] is a term used in a number of disciplines. In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information(paper, picture,....etc) that was created at the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which often cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.[3]