<p><a href="calmom%20wrote:">quote</a> My post that you quoted from was in response to cellardweller, who thus far seems able to argue an opposing point of view without resorting to ad hominem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cellardweller expressed the issue a bit differently (post #104):</p>
<p>"calmom:</p>
<p>Your suggested approach is complete nonsense, reflects a basic misunderstanding of statistics and would not have resulted in improved results. Your condescending tone is totally uncalled for.
If anybody needs a reality check up, you certainly do. You can keep your cookbook recipes to yourself."</p>
<p>Xiggi shared similar impressions:</p>
<p>" Regarding the easy dismissal of statement "admission rate increases linearly with SAT results", I'd love to quote my dearest CC sparring partner by repeating "It always amazes me that people who want to go to elite colleges have such a fundamental misunderstanding of math and probability. "</p>
<p>Are their remarks caused by or correlated with postings like the following? (One guess as to who wrote them).</p>
<p>"It always amazes me that people who want to go to elite colleges have such a fundamental misunderstanding of math and probability." (#31)
"This isn't rocket science. I don't think you could read any of the books written about competitive admissions and not figure this out. (#92)
"Yes, but I have pointed out already, you are mistaking correlation for causation. (#175)
"Sorry for this second-grade math lesson, (#210)
"What you are missing is ..."</p>
<p>"But I have to say that your arguments do illustrate [in]ability to think either critically or creatively, ... a close minded, one right answer /pick the best out of five mentality. ... undermine[d] capacity for complex reasoning, ... distill each problem into its simplest terms ... rushed decisions. ... you exemplifies this sort of limitation ... rather than curious eagerness to explore different possibilities, ... dogged acceptance of numbers on a graph
expert at memorizing facts and regurgitating them back ... but
flounder when it comes to the generation of new ideas." (#177)</p>
<p>You're right --- some posters just can't do without ad hominem. As for me, I'm just waiting to find out what this alleged confusion of correlation and causation was, exactly. Care to share?</p>