# Attribute and discrete data

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General Attribute and discrete data

Viewing 49 posts - 1 through 49 (of 49 total)
• Author
Posts
• #46877

Whitehurst
Participant

Hello – can someone explain the difference between Attribute and Discrete data please?
Cheers
Joe

0
#155601

sophos9
Member

Attribute is a continious scale that can be broken into finer and finer increments (i.e. cost, time, physical measures)
Discrete is not a continuous scale and usually represents catagories or counts (i.e. defective/not defective, satisfied/not satisfied, count of events, subjective ratings)
An easy bit of advice is if it can be divided then its attribute (this does not always work!!!)
Best, sophos9

0
#155602

Heebeegeebee BB
Participant

Not quite…
Attribute and Discrete are equivalent.   “Attribute/discrete” refers to what is being measured, as in: hot/cold; go/no-go; too thick/too thin;
Continuous/variable refers to an increment of measure that can be broken down into finer and finer increments ad inf.
The two types of data have been referred to as:
Continuous vs. Discrete
Variable vs. Attribute
Nominal vs. Ordinal

0
#155605

Heebeegeebee BB
Participant

Also, the “equivalence” is a rough one…One can convert Attribute into true discrete (or count) data to be minimally useful.

0
#155607

Member

Sophos,
Seems like youve given the definition for Variable data in place of Attribute Data.
Attribute Data is supposed to be simple classification like Good / Bad, Pass/ Fail, and is a part of Discrete data which is finite.

0
#155609

sophos9
Member

What an embarrassing post (reaches for the delete button!!) Joe, please ignore my post – I’m not sure what questions I was answering but its not yours.Although it may not look like it, I do know the difference, let the blasting begin…

0
#155610

Not quite either
Participant

Sorry, but not quite either …
There is a difference in the underlying measurement theory between the Euclidean model (discrete vs. continuous) on the one hand, and the Steven’s/Bridgman model (nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio scale levels). The Euclidean model distinguishes a ‘true’ quantitative measurement, i.e. continuous, from a purely qualitative observation ‘attribute’ (The old philosophical distinction between essence and existence still looms large behind this distinction). The Steven’s/Bidgman model essentially implodes this distinction and defines measurements in terms of the “mathematical operations” that can be performed with the measurement that have been obtained through measurement operations (The definition attempts to bridge the gap between physical operations and their representations in numbers) .
The two models are not only incompatible but contradict each other. Nevertheless modern textbooks simply ignore this fact and force us to translate them into each other. So here we are stuck with two incompatible measurement models and we can continue to discuss ad infinitum how they translate into each other …

0
#155612

Not quite either
Participant

in the second paragraph it should read: the two definitions are incompatible.

0
#155616

Heebeegeebee BB
Participant

OH JEEBUS, THEORY-MONGER!
The given types within the context of 6S methodology are discrete vs. continuous.
The orig poster tried to say that attribute data is continuous in nature.
Sorry, but a “go/no-go” measurement is not subject to finer increments of measure, unless it is transformed into count.

0
#155617

Heebeegeebee BB
Participant

Sophos…not intending to blast you, but the theory-hag that posted above.
Peace, man!

0
#155618

Let’s sing a song
Participant

i would luv to audit one of your training classes and see you stumble, fumble and dance around the explanation of these measurement terms. one mbb, whose class i had the hilarious pleasure of auditing overcompensated for her total lack of understanding of the meaning of the p-value by having the candidates  sing a song: along the lines of “> 0.05 bad, < 0.05 bad" …so given your lack of intellectual depth, what's your song?. :-).

0
#155619

pee test
Participant

Heebeegee BB is obviously also one of those six sigma “experts” who inquires about the value of the pee-test … being called a “hag” is almost an honor coming out of the keyboard of someone as illiterate in matters of statistics and measurements as you are (i’ll refrain myself from calling you what i think you really are: a badly aging faghag with a cheap old whig and a low level of education). Pet yourself on the back, there’s obviously not much more to you than name-calling.

0
#155620

GB
Participant

wow…pushed that button…big-time.
;-)

0
#155622

Steven Bonacorsi
Member

Thanks Heebee for keeping it simple, while there are many models that can take the simple count (attribute/discrete) data types (binary, nominal, ordinal) vs. the continuous/variable/response data type and certainly there are traps students can fall into trying to work out all the various nuances and differences. I believe, the Master can take the complex and turn into a chewable simplicity!
I would love to watch you sing and dance in front of your Belts!
Steven Bonacorsi

0
#155626

GB
Participant

;-)

0
#155629

The art of consultancy
Member

There are many models … The “expert consultants” on this site can have it both ways: If it’s too intellectually challenging, call it over-theoretical. Otherwise, pretend that blatantly trivial “theories” need the supervision of “expert advise”. Their craft: Conjure up an intellectual potato soup (binary (!), nominal, ordinal) and sell it as a gourmet meal … under the disguise of pragmatism and simplicity :-). At least “Allthingsidiot” has the honesty of admitting his blessed ignorance … Steven Bonarcorsi is obviously nothing more than another wizzard of ozz parading in the emperor’s new clothes … Clap, clap, clap!

0
#155631

Steven Bonacorsi
Member

“Art of Consultancy”, your the one with lots to learn, putting others down to try to raise your own self-importance is a classic self-centered tactic. Grow up kid.
Note: I’m not afraid to use my real name – while I do not know everything, I kno enough to recognise a theoritical fake. Do some homework, bubba, the attribute types I referred to have been long standing statistical terms for decades. While the original post asked for a simple explanation vs. your deep dive.
As for your consultancy – I just closed another multi-million deal today, obviously my clients trust who to call – how are you doing!
Best Regards,
Steven Bonacorsi

0
#155632

Whitehurst
Participant

Thanks for all your help, I think I will go with Vidyadhars final explanation.
Cheers
Joe

0
#155634

Thales vs. Tacky
Member

Truly successful business people leave the communication of their revenues to side conversations at a golf game (if at all). So, now you have not only publicly discredited yourself as a subject-matter expert, but you have also lost your credibility as a “business man” :-).
As for your knowledge of “attribute types”  … when did you come up with that term?

0
#155635

Investment yields
Participant

Steven,
You are obviously a very bright man and well experienced in Six Sigma. I have been reading a few of your comments and posts and I have no issues with most of their substance.
However, you have to admit that it is funny to see someone go so far as to “brag” about million dollar deals in the context of a totally unconsequential dispute over the theoretical foundations of two competing measurement theories (There are maybe 10 scientists who have had recent publications in this area over the past 15 years :-). But your “blow up” is particularly funny in light of your recent posts that are primarily concerned with advice about communication under adverse conditions.
In any case, thanks for the offer. I believe that you’ll be just fine without a more in-depth knowledge of the debate that sparked this very amusing exchange of “ideas”. Good luck with your business! … and make sure that you invest that money into higher yields than a bank checking account :-).

0
#155636

Steve Bonacorsi
Member

Perhaps those previous posts on communication and ettiquete you’ve read influenced your last response?
Note: I never disputed your post – your response was spot on, just a little deeper than what was called for. You brought the Toyota luxury sports car while a GM was needed.
Agreed, bragging never got anyone anywhere makes for an easy target, same goes with insulting others – its usually not helpful in the end.
I’m going to go rest my neck for a while now – peace
Steve Bonacorsi

0
#155637

Lebowski
Participant

Heebeegeebee,
Nice job. This person seems to be pretty impressed with deep statistical training.
Do you know what a statistician is? A person who did not have enough personality to be an accountant.
Lebowski

0
#155639

Cute joke but off the point
Participant

Lebowski,
Nice try and cute job on the joke. But you’re obviously not even understanding the nature of the topic: it’s called “measurement theory”, i.e. a cross-functional discipline that only partly overlaps with statistics. You’ll get a C for CUTE … :-).

0
#155640

Lebowski
Participant

Cute joke……,
A C makes me average and cute also. Life is good.
Time to go bowling.
Lebowski

0
#155654

Cone
Participant

Good joke.A statistician is also a person that doesn’t heave enough common
sense to be a Black Belt.

0
#155656

Mike Archer
Participant

A statician’s wife told him that he was just average.  He replied to her that she was just mean.

0
#155658

Lebowski
Participant

Gary,
They are like the old CQE’s lots of training, been around for years, no business impact. Black Belts show up and move the business forward and create value and the statisticians and CQE’s sit on the sidelines making their little caustic comments but they still won’t move their butts and get in the game. I guess they would rather be academically smug (and in this guys case arrogant) and uninvolved at no risk than to actually have to put it all on the line and see if they can actually be an impact player.
Have you ever been to an ASQ meeting and watched some guy present something. The whole room only knows one response. They wait for a capability analysis and scream that they don’t think it is normally distributed and how the whole analysis is invalid. Nobody wants to discuss the fact that the capability study doesn’t solve anything and it didn’t affect the outcome, not to mention that they don’t have a normality test that says it isn’t normal either.
Heebeegeebee contributes to much to take any crap from this person.
Lebowski

0
#155661

Lebowski
Participant

There is that George Group attitude. It had to show up sooner or later.
Lebowski

0
#155662

Lebowski
Participant

Gary,
Someone just told me, assuming that they know which Gary out of all the Garys in the world you are, that you were a CQE and past President of an ASQ Chapter. Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be personal.
They also told me that they could count the number a competant CQE’s they had ever worked with on one hand and you were one of them, same assumption anbout your identity.
Lebowski

0
#155663

Steven Bonacorsi
Member

Cute Mike,
LOL – thanks for sharing – never heard that joke.
Steven Bonacorsi

0
#155664

sophos9
Member

Then just imagine the statisticians wives then!

0
#155665

Cone
Participant

No offense taken.
In fact, I agree with what you said. There are rare occasions where a person can actually be a Statistician, a CQE, a MBA, a PhD, …. and also actually implement something. It is just not common.
Tell the person who said all of those things about me that I say the same bad things about him (with the exception of being the presidant of the ASQ Section). He is also a CQE and clearly can implement. He is one of only a handful for me too.

0
#155667

Lebowski
Participant

sophos9,
Wives? That by itself is amazing. The generosity of women never ceases to amaze me.
Lebowski

0
#155668

Lebowski
Participant

Gary,
He says he passed the CQE to prove he could do it then let it expire because he didn’t want to be associated with that group and he didn’t want to take any s__t from CQE’s for not taking the test.
Now I have to take s__t because he had the right Gary.
Time to go bowling.
Lebowski

0
#155669

Lebowski
Participant

You are a CQE and a CRE! Pretty impressive. You don’t find that many of those around.
Lebowski

0
#155670

Cone
Participant

and a CSSBB.
Just proves I know how to take a test.
The CRE is the hardest with the CQE being second hardest.
The CSSBB test is easiest and easiest to qualify for. I can do the CSSBB in less than an hour and lie to qualify – pretty stupid.

0
#155672

sophos9
Member

Was being multi-national…
You should know all about that, you spend too much time talking about it when you are bowling ‘dude’ you Cali slacker you :-)

0
#155674

Lebowski
Participant

sophos9,
Ah you are familiar with my body of work. Not you average bowler. I drink my beer with my little finger sticking out and they say there are no more heros.
Lebowski

0
#155675

Lebowski
Participant

Gary,
I am told you have passed each section of the CQE in less than one hour and you have coached about 200 people through the test with only one person failing. Pretty impressive.
Lebowski

0
#155676

sophos9
Member

Hero’s, dam man… Were you not a one of the Seattle Seven, you know, you and six others?
You do any work in Deutschland?

0
#155678

Cone
Participant

267 with one not passing on the first try.
The trick is to identify those who would not pass early and discourage them. ;-)
Funny thing was is that your friend was not one of them. Too damn stubborn to let me help.

0
#155679

Heebeegeebee BB
Participant

Hey Gary, Awesome yield! Seriously.
You are indeed a rare commodity.   It’s amazing how people’s pride could keep them from accepting your help. amazing.
Great job.
Heebee

0
#155681

Cone
Participant

You’ve gotta know the guy we are talking about – you would not be surprized at all.

0
#155680

Lebowski
Participant

Stubborn! I would never have guessed.
267 with one failure that has to be some kind of a record.
Lebowski

0
#155682

Lebowski
Participant

It rains to much in Seattle.
I was in Frankfurt last year but I have never worked there. I liked Frankfurt. It was very clean.
Lebowski

0
#155683

Cone
Participant

I don’t know – that guy out of Buffalo has done well too. And his denominator is probably 5 times larger.

0
#155684

Lebowski
Participant

Gary,
I have only met him a couple times. He repeats everything several times. No wonder they all pass they get the class three or four times in the time everyone else gets it once.
Lebowski

0
#155685

Cone
Participant

You should see what that repetition looks like if he thinks your are not truthful. It is an experience that probably leaves people scarred for life. Pretty awesome.
Truth of the matter that I only have a few heroes in my life and your friend and the man from Buffalo are two of them. The crazy physicist in another.

0
#155686

Lebowski
Participant

Gary,
He gave me his phone number three times. Not even a break in between and it was slower each time. You just want to say “I got it” but I was afraid he was going to make me repeat it three more times. Now I say hello and work on something else.
The physicist, is that Papa Smurf?
I think you guys have a mutual admiration society going on. What is the story about the pouring gas on each other and you kept them from lighting each other on fire.
Lebowski

0
Viewing 49 posts - 1 through 49 (of 49 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.