A Bell Curve by definition means that the distance from the weakest to the strongest channeler is intersected at exactly the 50% mark by the mean (the average channeler). Any skewing of the distribution would mean that the term “Bell Curve” cannot be applied to the distribution. Instead, it would then be either a positively or negatively skewed distribution. But not a Bell Curve.
This is simply wrong. First of all, when people say bell curve, or Gaussian distribution or whatever, they never mean it literally. Nothing can ever have a perfect Gaussian distribution, as you would need an infinite sample size. However, loads of things are described to an excellent approximation by a bell curve. That is what people mean when they say something is described by a bell curve.
Secondly, there is no reason to assume the average is at half the maximum value. You can very well have a distribution which is symmetric, aside from being truncated at zero. In that case, the average strength would be slightly shifted away from the most likely strength (the top of the curve). However, it could still be perfectly reasonable to call it a bell curve.
Fram kamerater!
The Bell Curve revisited
29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM
- 1488 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited
29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM
- 883 Views
That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM
- 1452 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM
- 891 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:40:27 AM
- 736 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:42:57 AM
- 735 Views
Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
29/10/2012 10:45:07 AM
- 821 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
29/10/2012 10:49:49 AM
- 725 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
29/10/2012 10:56:37 AM
- 802 Views
It's only as skewed as it seems when you make the assumption that the Forsaken
31/10/2012 04:34:11 AM
- 1021 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right...
29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM
- 801 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right...
29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM
- 765 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this
29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM
- 778 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this
29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM
- 710 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role
30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM
- 688 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength
30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM
- 729 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population?
29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM
- 667 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength?
29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM
- 669 Views
Absolutely no reason...
30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM
- 770 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason...
30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM
- 668 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not.
30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM
- 759 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random.
30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM
- 682 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample!
30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM
- 697 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample!
30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM
- 696 Views
Go read a stats text will you?
30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM
- 690 Views
Done
31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM
- 1364 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent...
10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM
- 948 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent...
11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM
- 722 Views
Seriously? I went and looked at some statistics books, and you won't even reply?
01/11/2012 12:13:49 PM
- 727 Views
Yes that totally makes sense
30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM
- 808 Views

That's not what happened...
30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM
- 735 Views
I hate to get into these things
29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM
- 838 Views
I would love for you to be right, because it would solve all our problems, but 0 is the challenge...
29/10/2012 07:56:34 PM
- 796 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed
29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM
- 821 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM*
29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM
- 406 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic...
29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM
- 746 Views
You're pathetic...
30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM
- 681 Views
The quote isn't specific
30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM
- 802 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken
30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM
- 1284 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed
29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM
- 737 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it
30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM
- 680 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame?
30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM
- 880 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame?
30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM
- 803 Views
Are you sure about that?
30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM
- 806 Views
Re: Are you sure about that?
30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM
- 712 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me
30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM
- 1002 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola
30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM
- 815 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola
30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM
- 702 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers
30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM
- 827 Views
Re: We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers
31/10/2012 12:30:52 AM
- 784 Views
A handful of examples are all we have and we have proof that an extremely strong Channeler
31/10/2012 02:58:57 AM
- 606 Views
you're confusing 2 things
30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM
- 875 Views
One thing
30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM
- 770 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value
30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM
- 791 Views