Comments on: I’d be outraged, but I’m just too dumb

By: fillyjonk

fillyjonk — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:14:50 +0000

Kristin, happy to help. (And I’m sure you’ll do fine. Orals are fucking scary, but just keep your cool and you’ll be all right.)

By: kristin

kristin — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:11:00 +0000

Ok, so I am sitting here trying not to lose my mind, and I thought of this post. I have two hours until I have to enter the room of terror: the oral preliminary exam for doctoral candidacy. If I fail, at least I can say I am dumb because I am fat, and not, you know, because I read this blog instead of studying.

By: fillyjonk

fillyjonk — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:07:29 +0000

David’s been playing nice today.

What can I say; I know how to read pingbacks and I have a memory longer than a couple of days. He’ll have to be nice for a while if he wants to drop the moniker.

By: kateharding

kateharding — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:34:03 +0000

FJ, David’s been playing nice today. FWIW.

By: David

David — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:14:51 +0000

Itf it makes you feel better to so address some image you have of me, then by all means. The slideshow is useful, though; I’m surprised that I haven’t seen one such as this before, since the arbitrariness of the BMI cries out for rebuttal and ridicule.

By: fillyjonk

fillyjonk — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:08:31 +0000

Oh wow, thanks Big Dick. (You don't mind if we call you Big Dick, do you?) We totally never would have known that!

By: David

David — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:36:07 +0000

BMI is little better than pseudo-science anyway, neglecting as it does frame type and muscle mass. It is often misused to diagnose people individually – a too-convenient rule of thumb at best. I would be extremely skeptical of such a study, especially if it applies the BMI as simply a variable without any type of context – which is how its usually used.

By: fillyjonk

fillyjonk — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:16:22 +0000

It’s great that you have an IQ of 144, are giving the commencement address with a 4.0 GPA or have 5 PhDs, but that does not mean the study is flawed.

Right, which is why we talked RIGHT THERE IN THE POST, RIGHT AFTER Rachel’s anecdotal evidence that you quoted, about the reasons the study is flawed.

Remember? The part where I said “we don’t even have to resort to anecdotal evidence”?

No, you don’t remember, because you read about five words of the post and decided you had to educate us little ladies about statistics. Say something intelligent next time or I will delete and ban you.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:10:24 +0000

Your guys lack of understanding of statistics and controlled studies pretty much supports what they are saying….
It’s great that you have an IQ of 144, are giving the commencement address with a 4.0 GPA or have 5 PhDs, but that does not mean the study is flawed. Sure, there might be reasons why the study is flawed, but your anecdotal evidence does not challenge the results whatsoever.

By: Joie

Joie — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:49:18 +0000

littlem – I have no idea. Since I moved to Australia I’ve lost all contact with the organization. This fat ass just can’t figure out how to do that :P

Seriously, I should get around to that…