On 6 Sep 2003 04:48:13 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "David Heiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > Our term "regression" for fitting an equation to data, comes from > > his observation that the heights of offspring is on the average less > > than the heights of either parent. In other words, there is a > > regression of the parents height. > > Not "less than." Less *extreme* than, i.e. closer to the mean. Less in > absolute value if you mean-center the heights. Taller-than-average or > shorter-than-average parents are likely to have children with closer-to- > average heights, *not* children whose heights are correspondingly on the > other side of the mean, e.g. taller-than-average parents are *not* > especially likely to have shorter-than-average children. In fact their > children are likely to be taller-than-average as well, just not by as much > as their parents.
And, of course that fruitful paradox always should be mentioned: The converse also is true. While selected parents have children whose heights are less extreme on the average, selected children have parents whose heights are less extreme on the average -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
