Dumb Arizona female runner calls out Olympic runner for running with headphones

Why didn't he actually quote what the girl said? I am betting it was "My high school coach tells us it isn't safe to wear headphones while running, that real runners need to hear what is going on around them." But he couldn't say that because that doesn't fit with his crap column.

Who needs to know anything about Statistics when you've got BroStats?

The Geomathematician wrote:

You're completely missing the point. Nothing I have said has been proven wrong. As I said before, the fact that you ignore the majority of my posts and latch onto one tidbit from each might be clouding your judgment.

You really need a different study. And yes...even only one person. Even if only one person gets smothered by their own pillow, pillows are an unnecessary luxury. How dare anyone use them. That's why statistical significance is important. It enables our intellect to overpower our emotions.

Except that it was made quite plain by the very link that you posted that you had invented the figures you used to calculate statistical significance. Except for that.

No, I really don't. Neither you or the other poster (also you perhaps?) have been able to dent the credibility of that study or to provide any counter-evidence, while I can point (and have pointed) to multiple sources which all analyse the study's findings in EXACTLY the way that I have.

Poor, poor choice; if I choose to sleep with a pillow, who else am I endangering? Running with headphones not only endangers you, but also all the people around you.

It would be important if we were trying to distinguish the least bad option between two courses of action, but since headphones serve absolutely no purpose in society, statistical significance is irrelevant.

Absolutely, you were suggesting my mentioning of a typo was relevant - "Still trying to shift focus I see - can you show me where I've commented on any of your typos before?". What was the typo a reference to again?

Have you ever driven a car GenericID? There are people dying the world over on a daily basis due to bad driving. Does that stand to reason that I can therefore assume you are endangering anyone around you anytime you drive anywhere? Is anyone who chooses to drive somewhere that they could easily get the bus, train or walk (in other words, an 'unnecessary luxury'?) ignorant and/or stupid? You're still not getting the 'statistical significance' issue here are you?

And the increase in accidents - has wearing headphones suddenly become more dangerous in the last 7 or 8 years? Or do you think that increase might, just might have something to do with the increase in people who wear them? You still haven't been able to prove that the headphones were the direct cause of an accident, not even once (and I didn't resort to an ad hominem at all - that was based on the observation that, well, you hadn't provided the proof. Simple really. You, on the other hand, with some of your fascinating ideas such as being better educated than me on the basis that I don't use certain phrases in standard conversation. Logically sound finding, that one).

Any chance of an English translation?

touché! you win again

Well that's never been in doubt, but if you were really trying to say something in the previous post it came across as completely garbled.

The idea that statistical significance is of ANY significance is completely false, because we are not trying to decide on a "least bad" scenario (to take your car driving scenario (another poorly thought out argument), what would be the outcome of banning cars? In other words, is the concept of people behaving responsibly (and thus minimising risk) behind the wheel of a car worth the risk to others from people who DON'T behave responsibly? We, as a society, have decided that it is, because the benefits outweigh the risks. If we are talking about runners wearing headphones, what is the benefit to society? Quite simply, there is none - so runners who wear headphones are behaving entirely selfishly, which is perfectly fine, as long as they don't endanger others while doing so. Unfortunately, they do endanger others, so it is not fine, and the runner who scolded Lemoncello is 100% justified).

you are clutching at straws hugely. The crux of this argument is this : some people wear headphones when out walking, others don't. Some people get hit by cars when out walking, some of these people (a very, very small known proportion) are wearing headphones. Is there enough evidence to suggest that those getting hit by cars happen as a direct result of their headphones? If there is, you certainly haven't provided it despite your claims. Your 2 much vaunted studies concluded firstly that there 'may' be a risk posed but further research is required to prove if so, and the second grouped headphone use in the same category as things like talking to friends and eating or drinking. Hardly abhorrent behaviour. And even then, there was only a weak correlation.

If you went outside now and did a head count of all people you saw wearing headphones, I'd wager you'd see AT LEAST 1 in every 50, most likely more. Now that's conjecture, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't right. If that is the case, in fact if it's even only 1 in 200 (highly unlikely) that still suggests there's no extra danger in wearing headphones for a pedestrian based on the figures we know.

The car example is perfectly valid - you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that any given journey is a 'benefit to society', what nonsense. In fact, I'd bet a large number of car journeys in an urban environment would fall under the category of an 'unnecessary luxury'. And where did I mention banning cars? I just asked if you perceived other drivers to be ignorant and stupid, on the sole basis that they're driving? Statistically there's far more chance they'll endanger you than any runner by the side of the road with headphones on.

If someone is wearing headphones and doesn't check for traffic when crossing a road then that is negligence on their part, absolutely nothing to do with the music. If they're hit by a car whilst on the pavement then that's not their fault and they almost certainly would've been hit if they hadn't been wearing headphones. The sole example you gave early in this thread of how he was supposedly 'endangering' people was everything to do with negligence on the part of the runner and nothing to do with whether or not they were listening to music.

I didn't invent any numbers. If you read the link, you would know that the initial number of pedestrian deaths was from a 9 year period. Your study examined the pedestrian deaths from a 7 year period that involved headphones. So, I took 7/9 of the total number of pedestrian deaths...so it would match up with the 7 years of your study. Then, if you bothered to read your own study, you would have seen that only 75 percent of victims died. So I multiplied your study by .75, then also corrected for the 55 percent of those killed by trains (since we're talking about cars) by multiplying by .55.

You obviously couldn't follow that the first time I posted it, so I did you a favor and explained it like I would to my little brother. You are welcome.

Your study sucks. Your "multiple sources" are a bunch of stupid news sites that all analyze it in the same way because nobody has any creativity, or statistical knowledge.

The analogy was completely valid, but now you changed up the parameters. Intellectually dishonest.

So...try again? I know you're gonna complain about being compared to my little brother...but that was grade school math I was doing.

fdzsx wrote:

[quote]GenericID wrote:

[quote]LM wrote:

You've fought a good battle, but give it up you will never win.

The headphone crowd is the same as the "I don't wash my hands because germs build my immunity" crowd.

All evidence presented is ignored because THEY have their personal proof it is OK

Worth a re-post.

coachingmama wrote:

Why didn't he actually quote what the girl said? I am betting it was "My high school coach tells us it isn't safe to wear headphones while running, that real runners need to hear what is going on around them." But he couldn't say that because that doesn't fit with his crap column.

I agree. In my opinion, there was no comment and no girl. The guy probably just wanted something to write about.

Let's be real, would a female jogger ever go out of her way to make derogatory comments to a fit looking male runner?

I doubt it. Most women I know are busy trying to avoid speaking to over eager males.

amcxz wrote:

fdzsx wrote:

[quote]GenericID wrote:

[quote]LM wrote:

You've fought a good battle, but give it up you will never win.

The headphone crowd is the same as the "I don't wash my hands because germs build my immunity" crowd.

All evidence presented is ignored because THEY have their personal proof it is OK

Worth a re-post.

LOL you think they care what people like you think? It has nothing to do with accepting, dismissing or even acknowledging evidence. Some people just want to run and listen to music while doing it. It's as simple as that.

Yes, you did. I've explained how you falsified the numbers, and it isn't anything to do with the number of years.

I'l take the expertise of someone who has signed their name to their article over an anonymous poster who has falsified his numbers.

Not at all - from my very first post on this thread I've pointed out that my objection to headphones is the danger they cause to other road users - that hasn't changed. The only intellectual dishonesty on this thread is your falsifying data.

I'd rather complain about your intellectual dishonesty and fraud.

More fake numbers? Grab on to that straw dude!

Are you really so stupid that you can't follow you own analogy? I didn't claim that EVERY car journey is a benefit to society, but I can claim with 100% confidence that headphone wearing pedestrians are NEVER a benefit to society.

Distractions cause negligence - FACT.

LOL you think they care what people like you think?

Since they've spent NINE pages trying to prove me wrong, even stooping to falsifying data and logically fallacious arguments, I'd say that yes, they do care.

Some people just want to run and listen to music while doing it. It's as simple as that.

So long as they realise that their selfish behaviour is endangering other road users, that's fine.

FIFY

GenericID wrote:

[quote]LOL you think they care what people like you think?

Since they've spent NINE pages proving me wrong. I'd say that yes, they do care.

It's only headphones.

I didn't falsify data. Repetition is a common logical fallacy. This was fun while it lasted, but you've got the endurance to keep lying, and I don't have the endurance to keep correcting you.

I didn't falsify data.

Yes, you did - it was made plain to you that the basic figure you were using for the number of accidents where the pedestrian was using headphones was by no means a comprehensive figure. You continue to insist that the number is valid, in spite of the evidence that YOU presented demonstrating otherwise. Ergo, you falsified data.

Repetition is a common logical fallacy.

Only if it is the repetition of a lie. Since I'm simply repeating the truth, there is no logical fallacy.