Catholic Soldier: Mass Murder Is My Job, But Serving With A Woman Is Too Much For My Conscience

Okay, sheesh.

Here's two obvious issues with time series data. Much of it (though not
all) has to do with "stationarity."

Lets say you have data trending down for a period of years. Over ten years,
you have an average of X1. Then you implement some change, and the data
beginss trending upward. over ten years, you have average of X2.

If you ignore teh nonstationarity of the data, you would say "hey, there's
been no change, because X1=X2."

But it gets worse.

Let's say you have 20 years of data- and let's say they are de-trended.
Let's say you implement "program X" on 1 Jan 19xx. You begin
implementation, and the progrm is finally "up and running" ten years later.
Depending on what date you *choose* for the breakpoint, you can show (most
likely) no change at all in key variables. Specifically, if we implemented
"gender inytegration" in 1980, but used only same-sex crews until 1985, by
choosing 1980 as the breakpoint you would totally overlook any changes in
trend occuring after teh true event, whoich would have occurred sometime
*after* 1985.

Anyhow, these are only two of themost common ways USAF staffers- many of
them unwittingly- seriously misrepresent many issues.

My favorite is when AFMC uses "Trend Adjusted" statistics to show customer
support is improving when it's actually getting worse. A classic!

Steve Swartz

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Also, anyone who has taken a good series of stats classes ansd a
research methodologies class would still be *very* skeptical of this type
of
advocacy briefing.

I fail to see why this data is so "skewed" in your view. Divorce rates
among
missile crews was X before gender integration and X after, seems clear cut
to
me that gender integration did not effect divorce rates among married
missileers.

That's why I find it necessary to continue to ask for these "facts," and
am
not satisfied with your "impressions" of the "briefing."

No impression was required, it was statistical data.

The claim that people under these circumstances would not fall prey to
well-documented human nature is a rather big claim, and needs at least
some
proof.

OK, I'll be your proof. Over 150 alerts over a three year period, at least
a
dozen with a woman who was not my wife and I kept my hands (and other
appendages) to myself for the entire 24-hour period. I was good friends
with at
least a dozen other married guys, none of who even hinted they had
comitted
adultery with a female missileer.

Campbell and Stanley
(as well as others) give a good description fo historical confounds in
time
series data. Life in the hole in 1985 was somewhat different from life
in
the hole in 1995.

Really? How so? I'm willing to bet life in the hole was identical from
1962 to
the present day. It was(and still is) a very scripted and monotonous
24-hour
period and with a few minor exceptions unchanged over time or by the
actions of
other nations.

Also, your definition of "fully gender integrated" is somewhat
misleading.
If you look at the percentage of crew population that were serving in
mixed-gender crews from 1985-1995 ytou do not find a magic point in time
where the ration poofed from "None" to "Full" overnight.

Only because your definition of gender integration is an equal population
of
female crewmembers. Using this definition, we are not now, nor will the
missile
community ever be, gender integrated.

Something tells me the "facts" shown by the 0-6s during the "training
briefings" were not that sophisticated. It's pretty easy to demonstrate
falshoods using inappropriate analysis.

Inappropriate analysis? Its simple analysis. Divorce rates before and
after
gender integration and UCMJ prosecution rates for adultery before and
after
integration. How can that data be misleading?

Claiming that
percentage of crewmembers serving in mixed gender crews went from 0 to
50%
"overnight" is an absolute howler.

Who in God's name said that? You're the one using that criteria as the
basis
for gender integration, not me. My definition of gender integration was
the
lifting of the restriction prohibiting woman from serving on Minuteman
crews.
If you use 50% as the magic number, like I said above, we'll never have a
gender integrated missile career. By my best guess, based on the makeup of
the
91st Missile Wing circa 1993, approximately 8-10% of the crewmembers were
female.


or are we choosing to define "full gender integration" at some other,
much
lower, level?

There can be no "level" associated with it. If you use some random level,
I can
argue the USAF as a whole is not gender integrated, but if you look around
you
won't see any WASPs.

Or are you just selectively misrepresenting what you choose to define as
"full gender integration (letting one woman on one crew)?

You're the one trying to somehow associate a percentage with full gender
integration (and a ridiculous level I might add, 50% are you serious?),
I'm not
misrepresenting anything, I'm just supplying you with facts about a life I
lived, everyday, for 3+ years. You seem to be someone who can't handle
facts
counter your personal beliefs.

YGBSM! Read what you wrote- do you honestly believe that what the Air
Force
has done is "study" in any objective sense of the word of this issue?!

Yes.

How long have you been in the war?

You can't be that naive. No way.

You're a "black helicopter" guy aren't you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"