Active Users:3389 Time:01/04/2026 10:36:38 PM
Who said it would? fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM


And why on earth would any of those things be correlated with strength in the power?

Not one of those things is directly correlated to the power. But those factors (and the many, many others that I did not mention) can add up to skew the results in one way. The next 1000 people from the same area that came might have had an extraordinarily large number of women capable of being Aes Sedai. Just look at the Two Rivers. The point is, non-random samples are biased. There doesn't have to be one mechanism of bias, when the sample is self-selected.
Reply to message
The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM 1689 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1056 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1629 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 1015 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 956 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 913 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 891 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 891 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 916 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 948 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 863 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 848 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 842 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 1001 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 858 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 802 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 821 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 911 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 814 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 904 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 836 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 835 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 829 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 822 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1597 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1114 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 938 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 789 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1609 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1175 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 952 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 772 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 862 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 949 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 438 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 890 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 823 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 849 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 898 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 917 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 956 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 982 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 977 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 970 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 508 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 887 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 824 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 931 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 766 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1433 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 875 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 885 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 828 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 1017 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 946 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 938 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 850 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1190 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 958 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 831 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 977 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1113 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 983 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 973 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 942 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 925 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 935 Views

Reply to Message