Active Users:632 Time:29/09/2026 12:07:35 AM
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 1797 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1150 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1727 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 1118 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 1061 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 1008 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 985 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 986 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 1010 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 1052 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 961 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 942 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 947 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 1132 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 940 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 888 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 916 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 1002 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 915 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 1004 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 932 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 927 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 917 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 905 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1707 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1217 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 1031 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 883 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1707 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1285 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 1054 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 858 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 951 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 1033 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 491 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 1011 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 915 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 939 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 991 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 1021 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 1063 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 1093 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 1081 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 1073 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 558 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 996 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 912 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 1031 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 867 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1535 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 970 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 986 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 928 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 1124 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 1050 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 1047 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 947 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1292 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 1060 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 931 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 1099 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1224 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 1091 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 1075 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 1048 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 1023 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 1036 Views

Reply to Message