The term “regress” sounds like it means “move down”, but instead it just means “move closer to”.
It means “return to(ward)”, with the implication that the observed difference from the mean is (partially) transient, so you’re returning to a past state. An example of why it sometimes implies “worsen” or “decrease” is that in a developmental context, most of the relevant change over time is assumed to be improvement, so a regression is by default a return to a lesser or worse state. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate what you said about it in a broader way, but that’s how the association comes out in my mind.
This is an important difficulty in naming (and communication in general). What a word or short phrase means to one person often differs from what it means to another.
There IS NO true, reversible, human-brain compression mechanism. Whatever labels you choose are going to be lossy and misleading on some dimensions, which are different to every reader. Comments, names, and labels are lies.
It’s still worth putting some effort into it, though, because we don’t have time nor cranial capacity to read all the details every time. Just don’t think it’s solvable, only somewhat improvable.
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.
I Return an purchase, Return to the scene of a crime, or Return to the left side of the page by pressing Enter.
Student’s learning Regresses over the summer, people Regress to a bestial state when hungry, an organized closet Regresses into chaos.
It means “return to(ward)”, with the implication that the observed difference from the mean is (partially) transient, so you’re returning to a past state.
Do you mean this in the context of statistics, or everyday life? My impression is that in the context of everyday life, it means to move down, but I could be mistaken.
Regarding the definition of “regress”, I mean in everyday life. I’ve never heard of it meaning “move down”, “decrease”, or “deteriorate” in a broad sense; I only know of it meaning that in the case I mentioned above, when the contextual assumption is that moving up or increasing has already been happening and is now being undone. In particular, a climb up one side of a hill of quality followed by a fall down a different side into a different worse state would not be a regression (though this can get blurry depending on which parts of the state are considered relevant).
However, because “regress” is used so commonly in that sort of context, the connotation of deterioration does exist, so you could make a reasonable case for the term “regression to the mean” being less clear than it could be on those grounds—that it pushes a default mental image of the deviating state being above or better than the mean, even though this is not an intended implication. It doesn’t mean “move closer” though—that’s derived entirely from the “to” part.
I think the implication of getting worse is strong enough that (outside the technical uses in statistics) you’d never say “regress” when the change involved wasn’t a worsening. E.g., if I try to imagine any of the following, I can’t see anyone actually saying them. “I have good news for you: the latest scans show that your cancer has regressed somewhat.” “The fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is beginning to regress now.” “The most recent figures show some regression in the unemployment caused by last year’s financial crash.”
The statistical uses—“regression to the mean” and the practice of “regression” (meaning model-fitting), which historically is actually derived from “regression to the mean”—are of course well enough established that once you’re used to them they don’t carry any connotation of things getting worse.
[EDITED to add:] On looking in the OED, I find that in fact “regression” is used about tumours and the like. But I bet that in the unfortunate event that any of us has to consult an oncologist, they will not use the word in that sense with us; I think it’s for technical use only, just like the statistical sense.
Ah, this makes a lot of sense. Good examples. In looking at those examples, it does seem clear to me that my original impression about what it means in the context of everyday life was correct.
It means “return to(ward)”, with the implication that the observed difference from the mean is (partially) transient, so you’re returning to a past state. An example of why it sometimes implies “worsen” or “decrease” is that in a developmental context, most of the relevant change over time is assumed to be improvement, so a regression is by default a return to a lesser or worse state. This doesn’t necessarily invalidate what you said about it in a broader way, but that’s how the association comes out in my mind.
This is an important difficulty in naming (and communication in general). What a word or short phrase means to one person often differs from what it means to another.
There IS NO true, reversible, human-brain compression mechanism. Whatever labels you choose are going to be lossy and misleading on some dimensions, which are different to every reader. Comments, names, and labels are lies.
It’s still worth putting some effort into it, though, because we don’t have time nor cranial capacity to read all the details every time. Just don’t think it’s solvable, only somewhat improvable.
So why not just call it “return to the mean”?
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.
Return has more intentionality than Regress.
I Return an purchase, Return to the scene of a crime, or Return to the left side of the page by pressing Enter. Student’s learning Regresses over the summer, people Regress to a bestial state when hungry, an organized closet Regresses into chaos.
Do you mean this in the context of statistics, or everyday life? My impression is that in the context of everyday life, it means to move down, but I could be mistaken.
Regarding the definition of “regress”, I mean in everyday life. I’ve never heard of it meaning “move down”, “decrease”, or “deteriorate” in a broad sense; I only know of it meaning that in the case I mentioned above, when the contextual assumption is that moving up or increasing has already been happening and is now being undone. In particular, a climb up one side of a hill of quality followed by a fall down a different side into a different worse state would not be a regression (though this can get blurry depending on which parts of the state are considered relevant).
However, because “regress” is used so commonly in that sort of context, the connotation of deterioration does exist, so you could make a reasonable case for the term “regression to the mean” being less clear than it could be on those grounds—that it pushes a default mental image of the deviating state being above or better than the mean, even though this is not an intended implication. It doesn’t mean “move closer” though—that’s derived entirely from the “to” part.
I think the implication of getting worse is strong enough that (outside the technical uses in statistics) you’d never say “regress” when the change involved wasn’t a worsening. E.g., if I try to imagine any of the following, I can’t see anyone actually saying them. “I have good news for you: the latest scans show that your cancer has regressed somewhat.” “The fifth wave of the COVID-19 pandemic is beginning to regress now.” “The most recent figures show some regression in the unemployment caused by last year’s financial crash.”
The statistical uses—“regression to the mean” and the practice of “regression” (meaning model-fitting), which historically is actually derived from “regression to the mean”—are of course well enough established that once you’re used to them they don’t carry any connotation of things getting worse.
[EDITED to add:] On looking in the OED, I find that in fact “regression” is used about tumours and the like. But I bet that in the unfortunate event that any of us has to consult an oncologist, they will not use the word in that sense with us; I think it’s for technical use only, just like the statistical sense.
Ah, this makes a lot of sense. Good examples. In looking at those examples, it does seem clear to me that my original impression about what it means in the context of everyday life was correct.
I see. Thanks for clarifying.