Yes.
He doesn't mention the fact that MAD loses information about volatility. He ignores the fact because that would make his whole article look silly.
>But please argue to the merit of his arguments.
It's kinda difficult when he is not saying anything specific. When he says: "look, those scientists don't grok basic math but fail for catchy names instead" without any facts, examples etc. all I can do is call him out on this nonsense. When he argues for abandoning SD I can give situations where it's not gonna work and I did.
>1) MAD is more accurate in sample measurements, and less volatile than STD since it is a natural weight whereas standard deviation uses the observation itself as its own weight, imparting large weights to large observations, thus overweighing tail events.
But this is nonsense. It's like saying measuring temperature is better than measuring mass. Those are just different things to measure and saying one is less volatile isn't really meaningful. SD contains information about volatility, MAD doesn't. That the reason SD is used for many things. When you want to substitute one with the other you gotta address how you handle that lost information.
>Also he alludes to his paper with Goldstein. It is clear form Goldstein and Taleb's manuscript that that Taleb is not just throwing these arguments to talk trash about practitioners of statistics. They
This paper wouldn't pass peer review. What was the methodology ? How much time they have ? Did they have access to a computer ?
Even if it was really serious experiment it's just toy example of people getting question asked in tricky way wrong. What about actual mistakes they make in real world because of using SD instead of MAD ? This is what he claims is a problem.
He claims SD should be abandoned in favor of MAD, what is one situation which people would get better if they do it ?
I am mocking him because is a master of using many words without making a point and somehow is good at seducing readers to like him.
Yes. He doesn't mention the fact that MAD loses information about volatility. He ignores the fact because that would make his whole article look silly.
>But please argue to the merit of his arguments.
It's kinda difficult when he is not saying anything specific. When he says: "look, those scientists don't grok basic math but fail for catchy names instead" without any facts, examples etc. all I can do is call him out on this nonsense. When he argues for abandoning SD I can give situations where it's not gonna work and I did.
>1) MAD is more accurate in sample measurements, and less volatile than STD since it is a natural weight whereas standard deviation uses the observation itself as its own weight, imparting large weights to large observations, thus overweighing tail events.
But this is nonsense. It's like saying measuring temperature is better than measuring mass. Those are just different things to measure and saying one is less volatile isn't really meaningful. SD contains information about volatility, MAD doesn't. That the reason SD is used for many things. When you want to substitute one with the other you gotta address how you handle that lost information.
>Also he alludes to his paper with Goldstein. It is clear form Goldstein and Taleb's manuscript that that Taleb is not just throwing these arguments to talk trash about practitioners of statistics. They
This paper wouldn't pass peer review. What was the methodology ? How much time they have ? Did they have access to a computer ? Even if it was really serious experiment it's just toy example of people getting question asked in tricky way wrong. What about actual mistakes they make in real world because of using SD instead of MAD ? This is what he claims is a problem. He claims SD should be abandoned in favor of MAD, what is one situation which people would get better if they do it ? I am mocking him because is a master of using many words without making a point and somehow is good at seducing readers to like him.