Because (to me, at least) that would mean going all the way back to the mean, whereas regression to the mean means going some of the way back towards the mean.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that “regression to the mean” is the optimal name for this phenomenon; just saying why a particular other name might not be an improvement.)
To me “move” in this context would sound unnatural, perhaps because it’s a verb as well as a noun.
I suspect that the suggestion of badness may have been intended when the term “regression to the mean” was first coined by Francis Galton. I think he was particularly interested in investigating exceptional people of various kinds. The OED’s first citation for “regression” in this sense is from him, and the exact phrase he uses is “regression towards mediocrity”, that last word being another one that generally has a somewhat negative sense.
English is not Newspeak: there are multiple words for the same basic concept that convey shades of meaning and emotion, and allow for poetic usage that sometimes becomes mainstream.
The issue here is that “regression” contains the shade of meaning of “going to a lesser or worse state” and the discussion is about this being undesirable.
IMO, “regression” is the correct technical term, meaning “return”. Whether that’s lesser or worse depends on whether you think the domain increases or improves with progress (vs just “moving forward”, which is what the term technically means).
But it highlights the problem with the entire thesis. There ARE NO COMMON WORDS which don’t have a huge amount of context and connotation, most of it being orthogonal to the use you intend, and some of it being contradictory in different people’s expectation.
“opening the box” isn’t finding a better label. It’s understanding the underlying behavior such that the label becomes a useful shorthand for you.
Because (to me, at least) that would mean going all the way back to the mean, whereas regression to the mean means going some of the way back towards the mean.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that “regression to the mean” is the optimal name for this phenomenon; just saying why a particular other name might not be an improvement.)
Then “move towards the mean” would capture the meaning. Are there reasons why “regression to the mean” is better then “move towards the mean”.
To me “move” in this context would sound unnatural, perhaps because it’s a verb as well as a noun.
I suspect that the suggestion of badness may have been intended when the term “regression to the mean” was first coined by Francis Galton. I think he was particularly interested in investigating exceptional people of various kinds. The OED’s first citation for “regression” in this sense is from him, and the exact phrase he uses is “regression towards mediocrity”, that last word being another one that generally has a somewhat negative sense.
See comment below about Intentionality.
English is not Newspeak: there are multiple words for the same basic concept that convey shades of meaning and emotion, and allow for poetic usage that sometimes becomes mainstream.
The issue here is that “regression” contains the shade of meaning of “going to a lesser or worse state” and the discussion is about this being undesirable.
IMO, “regression” is the correct technical term, meaning “return”. Whether that’s lesser or worse depends on whether you think the domain increases or improves with progress (vs just “moving forward”, which is what the term technically means).
But it highlights the problem with the entire thesis. There ARE NO COMMON WORDS which don’t have a huge amount of context and connotation, most of it being orthogonal to the use you intend, and some of it being contradictory in different people’s expectation.
“opening the box” isn’t finding a better label. It’s understanding the underlying behavior such that the label becomes a useful shorthand for you.