Active Users:1452 Time:16/10/2026 04:41:36 AM
But of course he did.. fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM
He never gave us a glimpse of these details, and you're right that he kept things vague, but that doesn't change the fact that he did create this system which has a mathematical basis in which all the channelers her created fit. Did he bend it from time to time in the series? Sure. Did he have characters make ignorant or arrogant comments that contradicted the actual rules? Sure. But that doesn't mean he didn't know. Given what DomA said, he seemed to know to a very specific degree how strong a channeler was. And he also knew about their Talents, strengths in particular flows, etc. For Aes Sedai, he knew how long they were Novice and Accepted, how old they were, and other minor details most authors don't bother with.

Now, the discussion on strength is purely academic. But at the heart of it has to be the few specific points about strength that Jordan made outside the books. All characters can lie or be mistaken. But when Jordan says something, especially when its something others in Team Jordan have confirmed, you can't wish it away. That has to be the first principle on which you base your theoretical list. Every other quote is open to interpretation. I guarantee you if you took a quote from the books and RJ's quote on the bell curve and pointed the contradiction to him, he would say the character in question was mistaken, or that you're ignoring the implications of skill or knowledge.

And that's precisely the approach Darius and I take to coming up with a strength list. And that's why we were both right years ago to insist that gateway size can't be used to compare male and female strength (which is what Shannow was doing). We were also right to insist that you do have to consider effective strength, not raw strength. I can also remember Shannow insisting on wotmania that effective strength was irrelevant because RJ pulled that out of his hat. And now see how the later parts of the series have totally held that up?

You can continue insisting RJ was wrong or confused. But you have no evidence ot back it up. Darius and I, however, have a system that takes all the quotes into account AND fits with what RJ said. And that's got to be the way to do it.
Reply to message
The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM 1804 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1164 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1739 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 1130 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 1067 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 1013 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 994 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 999 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 1020 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 1057 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 964 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 950 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 955 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 1141 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 951 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 896 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 919 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 1010 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 924 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 1014 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 941 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 928 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 921 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 910 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1717 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1218 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 1039 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 890 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1718 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1291 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 1057 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 874 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 958 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 1038 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 495 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 1014 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 923 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 944 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 1000 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 1028 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 1073 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 1100 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 1084 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 1079 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 566 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 1012 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 922 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 1044 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 874 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1543 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 984 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 992 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 939 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 1143 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 1069 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 1050 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 957 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1298 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 1066 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 933 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 1104 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1233 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 1101 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 1092 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 1058 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 1029 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 1045 Views

Reply to Message