Active Users:550 Time:01/01/2026 08:59:48 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 1632 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1005 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1591 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 975 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 921 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 872 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 860 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 861 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 876 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 908 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 827 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 805 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 812 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 967 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 823 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 765 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 778 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 872 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 779 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 867 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 795 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 798 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 795 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 787 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1561 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1070 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 897 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 745 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1567 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1137 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 906 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 735 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 817 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 911 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 421 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 857 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 787 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 808 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 866 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 881 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 914 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 948 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 933 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 937 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 490 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 848 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 774 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 895 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 738 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1397 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 836 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 848 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 796 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 977 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 909 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 902 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 813 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1144 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 920 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 790 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 930 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1064 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 940 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 926 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 900 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 881 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 895 Views

Reply to Message