Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words"
(→Table of random words: its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. very few of these words qualified for our list, which consists of the best)
(→PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY: Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as Bernard Riemann's famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work)
|Line 1,755:||Line 1,755:|
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
Revision as of 11:06, 28 July 2010
- 1 Mother Nature
- 2 "Bully pulpit"
- 3 Definition
- 4 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong!
- 5 Adding Obama Portmanteaus
- 6 Underdog
- 7 Excellent scholarship
- 8 Maggie Thatcher
- 9 Possibility
- 10 Kiss of Death
- 11 Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger
- 12 Research method
- 13 Suggestion?
- 14 Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test
- 15 Destruction of words
- 16 PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--Willminator 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)
I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --Ben Talk 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
- That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--Andy Schlafly 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--Willminator 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)
- Look up "Gaia" or "Terra Mater" - "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth" has been around thousands of years. PaulBurnett 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
- The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not "science" unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see falsifiability).
- The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in the book; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, "You will not die" yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that "life" and "death" correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, "You have the name of being alive, but you are dead" in Revelations and, "Let the dead bury their own dead" in Luke 9)
- We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called "peace movement", for example, never wanted peace but simply the victory of America's anti-democratic enemies. The "save the earth" movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else.
- Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the Holy Spirit is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings.
- Liberals claim that science has proved Evolution without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of pseudoscience). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world (Big Bang theory) and the origin of life. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply "evolved" from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --Ed Poor Talk 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)
How about "bully pulpit"? When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, "bully" meant something like "excellent" rather than overbearing.--Andy Schlafly 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--Willminator 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)
I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by "conservative words." As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? EMorris 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)
33 million sites turn up in a Google search for "anti-Christian" - Wrong!
For the term "anti-Christian" the article claims "thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search."
Where did this number come from? Go to Google and type in "anti-Christian" (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits. Type in "anti-Christian" (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits. Where did the "thirty-three million" come from? PaulBurnett 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
- That's an interesting observation, Paul. The number of Google links retrieved for the search "anti-Christian" has fallen substantially. That begs the question of why.--Andy Schlafly 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)
Adding Obama Portmanteaus
I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like Obamanation, Obamunism, etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. JonS 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)
Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --Jpatt 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)
- I agree that "underdog" is a conservative term, and I will promote it now. Thanks for mentioning this.--Andy Schlafly 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)
In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. AmandaBunting 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
- Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here. Conservatives words express insights that are conservative. These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:
- U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time
- There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values
- Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists
- Fight to win: What conservatives should do!
BenjyB 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
- Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. BenjyB 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
- Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries. Perhaps because "Maggie" was actually not very conservative by American standards? She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
quack, coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite "medicines" of new-age liberals. DouglasA 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
- Interesting and informative suggestion. However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful. I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--Andy Schlafly 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Kiss of Death
The term "Kiss of Death" clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was a 1916 film by that name. In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. DanieleGiusto 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
- Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word. Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--Andy Schlafly 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
- Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. DanieleGiusto 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger
While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense. Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word. --Benp 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
- "Carpetbagger" is a fascinating suggestion. Hillary Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy were modern senatorial examples. Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--Andy Schlafly 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
- Well...hmm. There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live. His defense, as I recall, was "Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district." (It wasn't.) --Benp 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.
This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --MarcoT2 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
What does everyone else think about militant atheist? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning for an hour and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? Tyler Zoran Talk 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)
Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test
The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a perfect layer (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.
What's the probability to get a perfect layer? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct:
For a layer, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a perfect layer:
15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) × (1/15)1 × (2/15)2 × (4/15)4 × (8/15)8 = 675675 × 234 / 1515 =0.0265
2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a perfect layer instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?
That you were able to repeat this process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...
- Selection bias exists in any study. The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results. Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--Andy Schlafly 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
- Selection bias exists in any study. But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)
- Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century. But Conservapedia's Law doesn't claim that their is a increase by century. No, it explicitly states that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the maximum likelihood estimator for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated all conservative words at least for one century.
- RonLar 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
An unbiased test
Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found.
If you mark each conservative word with an "r" (and perhaps each liberal word with an "l"), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.
Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:
|Century||Number of Words|
- Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s. Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.
- That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts. That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--Andy Schlafly 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
- That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that dictionaries are good at defining old words, in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that Conservapedia's Law should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)
- A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.
- RonLar 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
Table of random words
2 storeroom 3 hunkers 4 sufficing 5 coffeehouses 6 stalagmites 7 therapy 8 sanitation 9 cheapskates 10 Caesareans 11 ringmaster 12 acclimate 13 penology 14 verandah 15 caregivers 16 fed 17 disengaged 18 whitecaps 19 dissertation 20 consignment 21 chainsaws 22 speeds 23 kinfolk 24 caribous 25 hobbyists 26 coefficients 27 protuberance 28 morphemes 29 Caroline 30 millionaires 31 recyclable 32 wilts 33 unreconstructed 34 chandeliers 35 palomino 36 joysticks 37 volleys 38 cajoling 39 bucksaws 40 spars 41 portaged 42 acoustically 43 humanize 44 hybridize 45 tipsters 46 overprices 47 marksmanship 48 fezes 49 depressant 50 auctioned 51 flamethrower 52 biking 53 artistic 54 agribusiness 55 jottings 56 pedicures 57 Cordilleras 58 slots 59 recording 60 unrealistic 61 rationalism 62 peacekeeping 63 aromatherapy 64 jackknife 65 champagne 66 horrendous 67 Quasimodo 68 excavator 69 chowders 70 arts 71 configure 72 civic 73 telegraphy 74 sweepstakes 75 euphoric 76 strategy 77 subgroup 78 shouting 79 gusher 80 telemarketing 81 glucose 82 booties 83 preponderated 84 manures 85 outspokenness 86 wiener 87 embeds 88 amped 89 sternums 90 empathy 91 cognomina 92 colitis 93 kimono 94 retched 95 singletons 96 megaphoned 97 respelled 98 Hindus 99 squiggle 100 irrigates 101 reconstructions 102 deceptiveness 103 colonialism 104 missioned 105 dyes 106 maladroit 107 tents 108 turfs 109 generalization 110 seamanship 111 duffers 112 scruffier 113 pollinate 114 bobcats 115 achieved 116 exerted 117 flapjack 118 Independence 119 lucidity 120 indenturing 121 enumerable 122 disenchanted 123 flashback 124 trilogies 125 colloquially 126 Colby 127 killjoys 128 lifelines 129 hydrotherapy 130 psychoanalysis 131 memorializing 132 bronchitis 133 rink 134 automobiles 135 dandy 136 schoolmarms 137 debriefing 138 glands 139 oceanography 140 jetted 141 hurdler 142 dependability 143 tactician 144 rotor 145 liturgies 146 quantified 147 wests 148 quitters 149 ocarinas 150 betting 151 apathetically 152 smoggier 153 Xenia 154 saris 155 dupe 156 voodooism 157 optimize 158 particularization 159 funereally 160 masterminding 161 capsizes 162 orchestrates 163 uncivilized 164 emphasized 165 skyrocket 166 plagiarist 167 politicoes 168 streptococci 169 pantsuits 170 waving 171 decontaminates 172 teensy 173 taxonomy 174 proselytizes 175 drollness 176 expectoration 177 legmen 178 modulations 179 diploma 180 Brandy 181 radar 182 pushiest 183 drill 184 lush 185 temperas 186 musicals 187 wheal 188 horticulture 189 cancan 190 jocularity 191 caramels 192 bipolar 193 sophisticated 194 injudicious 195 emulsion 196 ignore 197 cannonballed 198 swastika 199 overachievers 200 rubella 201 chuckhole 202 ersatz 203 breeziness 204 climaxes 205 explosiveness 206 empathizing 207 jumps 208 secularizing 209 sequoia 210 bibliography 211 prettying 212 bouldered 213 authorship 214 vocalizing 215 tarpons 216 camisoles 217 cowpox 218 tans 219 breathable 220 machines 221 tycoon 222 flicking 223 squishes 224 semiprofessional 225 feline 226 seedling 227 hankie 228 entitlement 229 abscissa 230 derisive 231 romance 232 overprice 233 beads 234 stipple 235 Kitty 236 jewelled 237 mascaraed 238 dissociation 239 moments 240 Spica 241 quaking 242 legislation 243 wobbly 244 scorches 245 books 246 gastrointestinal 247 finked 248 renegotiates 249 flautists 250 wrongheadedness 251 allergenic 252 squishiest 253 kickoffs 254 mecca 255 disses 256 woodwinds 257 discotheques 258 replacements 259 tomahawks 260 voluptuaries 261 salon 262 eliciting 263 resale 264 soporific 265 dosage 266 smokestacks 267 rationalists 268 subsumed 269 futzes 270 minutemen 271 stingrays 272 marathoner 273 vagina 274 propellers 275 rooftops 276 sensationalist 277 bluejackets 278 individualize 279 hyphenating 280 Xanthippe 281 federated 282 amortize 283 airfare 284 hyphenates 285 syncopates 286 sermonizing 287 biochemistry 288 babysat 289 yellows 290 riskier 291 cassocks 292 stated 293 Cordoba 294 Slinky 295 eventfully 296 nines 297 blabbermouths 298 fraternizes 299 bucked 300 Boolean 301 bivalve 302 ricochetted 303 toys 304 toted 305 commissars 306 cushioning 307 redeploy 308 poignancy 309 variegating 310 snuffbox 311 stoplight 312 biochemists 313 bicycling 314 disenfranchised 315 nosing 316 enlightenment 317 knockout 318 resurgent 319 pediments 320 skyscrapers 321 treatments 322 polio 323 flashbulbs 324 empower 325 rounding 326 pervasive 327 humped 328 oxymora 329 freebie 330 passageway 331 barfing 332 motorists 333 triglycerides 334 Mayans 335 stopped 336 kidnapper 337 pensioning 338 foreclosures 339 Yankees 340 manifestoing 341 predictor 342 Delawares 343 librettos 344 panoply 345 angstroms 346 jodhpurs 347 backpedal 348 sugars 349 preclude 350 unravelling 351 Lilliput 352 motivator 353 enslavement 354 pencilling 355 flukey 356 amoral 357 depository 358 unemotional 359 stumpy 360 cartons 361 gal 362 ignitions 363 malingered 364 spotlighted 365 photographic 366 abnegated 367 dashing 368 atrocious 369 inanities 370 derricks 371 mountaineer 372 inseminate 373 sacrosanct 374 modernize 375 specializations 376 obliging 377 heckles 378 baccalaureates 379 bluebirds 380 lengthiest 381 octets 382 physiotherapist 383 disorganizing 384 toffees 385 unfurling 386 abnegate 387 bathrobe 388 socked 389 crepe 390 polkas 391 overwriting 392 punned 393 platoons 394 infrared 395 ensuring 396 decimate 397 baggiest 398 plungers 399 trampolining 400 centigram 401 Topsy 402 epochal 403 boogies 404 showrooms 405 pianofortes 406 Orphic 407 logbooks 408 amphibious 409 rapprochements 410 terms 411 Kalmyk 412 petering 413 geocentric 414 stills 415 ethnologist 416 exec 417 flairs 418 likableness 419 rods 420 melange 421 graduated 422 ante 423 voluminously 424 impaled 425 cognacs 426 yups 427 comfiest 428 strychnine 429 subsoiled 430 conics 431 Salish 432 windsocks 433 rutabaga 434 vacuumed 435 maestri 436 podiatrist 437 restructured 438 metrically 439 motorcade 440 zipping 441 unmoral 442 electioneered 443 minibikes 444 trillion 445 sudsier 446 actuator 447 acing 448 masochism 449 softeners 450 cocksucker 451 brig 452 verbs 453 buccaneer 454 confessed 455 filibustered 456 rearmed 457 melodramatics 458 swivelled 459 veggies 460 monochrome 461 hellos 462 escalators 463 Seyfert 464 bushwhack 465 encapsulation 466 combining 467 realists 468 playgrounds 469 teenage 470 glandular 471 tot 472 cyclical 473 tinsmith 474 commitment 475 undersells 476 orthopaedics 477 yardstick 478 Vivian 479 peppy 480 swatted 481 earlobes 482 snapshots 483 nitpicker 484 unities 485 depressants 486 briefing 487 halo 488 watermarking 489 electronics 490 inadequates 491 ghosted 492 rapscallions 493 snorkeler 494 percentages 495 relapsing 496 facet 497 inconsistently 498 takeout 499 acidify 500 password
RonLar 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899
RonLar 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
- I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative. But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words. Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
- Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:
|percentage of conservative words||8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%|
RonLar 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
- That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.
- But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the "best" new conservative words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
Destruction of words
Andy, your model takes into account only the creation of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.
Imagine a country where a constant number of conservative words is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g, only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.
Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as Conservapedia's Law implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes constant after a while...
RonLar 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
- The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like "population control") fall out of favor quite quickly.--Andy Schlafly 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY
For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of the conservative words:
An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was introduced (with Segway) - and preserved ever since.
How does this confirm that selection bias is the driving force behind the Conservapedia's law? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.
But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed 17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues, you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !
After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...
So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.
RonLar 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
- Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words. Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as Bernard Riemann's famous mathematical lecture. None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours. The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--Andy Schlafly 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)