Active Users:781 Time:23/12/2024 03:21:30 PM
Tiny Unimportant Objection to "Bell Curve" Point Shadowkiller Send a noteboard - 03/01/2010 03:09:55 PM

Previous Posts

2. Secondly, one of the posters, an electrical engineer says that the term bell curve is used very loosely in his profession to describe anything with a peak that tapers off. There is no evidence that RJ's bell curve is one of a pure gaussian distribution. It's possible, but not probable, that he was describing this sentiment. If one professional can do it, it's not beyond belief that RJ could too.

I totally disagree with your analysis.

The quote from amirebram is:
Bell curves are usually not centered on the mean or median. This is a statistical fact.

And when challenged on this he said
There are many characteristic curves that are called "bell curves" by engineers. (Might be different with statistic people)


No supporting evidence has been presented by amirebram for this assertion. I have presented counterarguments that,
1. Wikipedia recognizes the search "bell curve" to mean only the normal/Gaussian distribution.
2. A Google search for "bell curve" overwhelmingly returns the result that "bell curve" = normal/Gaussian distribution. (I would say it returns only that result since on the first page it returns only that result, but I haven't looked through other pages.) Specifically, a Google Images search results only in images of the normal/Gaussian distribution through the first five pages. (The first that shows something different comes up because the page references the book The Bell Curve.)
3. A search at Mathworld---mathworld.wolfram.com, the definitive mathematical resource on the Internet---for "bell curve" returns many entries. However, the only one of these entries on a statistical distribution is the normal/Gaussian distribution.
4. My weakest argument, that from personal experience: none of the other commenters in the previous thread besides amirebram (including myself) have once ever heard the term "bell curve" being used for any distribution other than the normal/Gaussian distribution.

With all these facts in play, we have the weight of all available resources converging to one answer: "bell curve" = normal/Gaussian distribution. Only one person, against the whole of the Internet reference world, disputes this usage. I am not saying he is wrong, just that his usage is different from the normal usage.

Still, given the anomaly that is not using "bell curve" in the way I have outlined, it is safe to say RJ used it in the way I use it, and every other poster on this board save one uses it, and every available reference material uses it.

The usage "bell curve" = normal/Gaussian distribution should be the null hypothesis. As in, any time a person says "bell curve" we can safely assume he or she means "normal/Gaussian distribution." If one wishes to claim that this person meant something else, then one must present evidence in favor of that proposition. In absence of this evidence we assume the null hypothesis.

So I do not agree when you say, "There is no evidence that RJ's bell curve is one of a pure gaussian distribution." As I have shown, this usage should be the default position, the null hypothesis. Any other hypothesis, such as 'RJ meant ____ distribution,' needs evidence in its favor. Until then, let us all agree that RJ meant that the levels of OP strength follow a normal/Gaussian distribution.
Reply to message
One Power strength - critical analysis of previous posts and some further ideas - 03/01/2010 07:59:24 AM 2357 Views
I support your view, with maybe a few comments to add... - 03/01/2010 02:58:05 PM 1072 Views
Re: I support your view, with maybe a few comments to add... - 03/01/2010 04:37:56 PM 881 Views
where is this phantom quote of Egwene "not standing a chance" - 03/01/2010 05:20:20 PM 770 Views
Here's the real quote - 03/01/2010 05:38:59 PM 828 Views
Well that quote perfectly illustrates the skewed way in which you interpret the evidence... - 03/01/2010 06:18:22 PM 792 Views
I also think the quote is specific - 03/01/2010 06:34:38 PM 795 Views
Skill not Strength is the key that and the potential that another FS was with her - 03/01/2010 06:51:46 PM 813 Views
Bah - 03/01/2010 07:13:01 PM 755 Views
Who's arguing that? - 03/01/2010 07:34:21 PM 727 Views
What ARE you arguing? - 03/01/2010 07:43:06 PM 797 Views
Precisely... - 03/01/2010 07:56:24 PM 735 Views
Just like Asmos killer - 03/01/2010 08:00:21 PM 812 Views
That there is far more to strength in her quote! - 03/01/2010 08:05:20 PM 692 Views
Re: That there is far more to strength in her quote! - 04/01/2010 09:40:05 AM 889 Views
and where do I ever say Elayne is only a small step below Moghedien? - 04/01/2010 03:08:37 PM 786 Views
You more than imply it with your own list - 04/01/2010 03:39:06 PM 796 Views
and you are fixated on simple strength to the exclusion of everything else - 04/01/2010 05:05:54 PM 740 Views
Re: and you are fixated on simple strength to the exclusion of everything else - 04/01/2010 06:46:45 PM 1131 Views
there are no absolutes - 04/01/2010 08:49:46 PM 1187 Views
I agree with Darius Sedai. - 06/01/2010 07:49:10 PM 665 Views
- 03/01/2010 06:46:12 PM 819 Views
Calm down, please... - 03/01/2010 07:11:11 PM 890 Views
I'm not upset - 03/01/2010 07:33:00 PM 764 Views
Tiny Unimportant Objection to "Bell Curve" Point - 03/01/2010 03:09:55 PM 888 Views
Re: Tiny Unimportant Objection to "Bell Curve" Point - 03/01/2010 04:39:25 PM 794 Views
Which makes sense - 03/01/2010 05:15:24 PM 775 Views
Really? - 03/01/2010 06:09:22 PM 701 Views
All I'm saying is that information on the internet should - 04/01/2010 06:08:27 AM 729 Views
I've got a slightly revised opinion than my last post - 03/01/2010 05:16:39 PM 1000 Views
Lanfear quote - 03/01/2010 05:37:50 PM 816 Views
Read RJ's quote again... - 03/01/2010 06:13:42 PM 733 Views
Nothing is perfect - 03/01/2010 06:33:44 PM 880 Views
Re: I've got a slightly revised opinion than my last post - 03/01/2010 06:31:09 PM 925 Views
It's actually not that complicated ... simple math actually - 03/01/2010 07:08:52 PM 800 Views
Yes, but to think that RJ put that much effort into it is improbable - 03/01/2010 07:19:13 PM 801 Views
I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things! - 03/01/2010 07:56:17 PM 719 Views
Re: I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things! - 04/01/2010 09:50:38 AM 836 Views
Re: I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things! - 04/01/2010 03:26:10 PM 909 Views
Re: I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things! - 04/01/2010 03:52:19 PM 784 Views
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth - 04/01/2010 05:09:15 PM 731 Views
Dude - 04/01/2010 06:21:28 PM 684 Views
Dude, please go back to Fionwe's post - 04/01/2010 06:35:03 PM 729 Views
Re: Dude, please go back to Fionwe's post - 04/01/2010 06:49:42 PM 737 Views
Then how can you know? - 04/01/2010 08:17:46 PM 803 Views
A reply... - 03/01/2010 06:02:33 PM 726 Views
The Tower sample is skewed allright, but to the upper side of the strength range... - 03/01/2010 06:36:45 PM 865 Views
I agree - Aes Sedai are stronger in the Power - 03/01/2010 07:26:45 PM 931 Views
Re: A reply... - 03/01/2010 07:09:55 PM 856 Views
I think distance is related to Strength - 03/01/2010 07:21:46 PM 776 Views
Maybe, but to what conclusion? - 03/01/2010 07:29:39 PM 756 Views
OOps, missed part of the quote ... sorry about that! - 03/01/2010 07:59:20 PM 697 Views
Re: A reply... - 03/01/2010 08:38:07 PM 890 Views
Re: A reply... - 04/01/2010 10:10:13 AM 871 Views
So many double standards. - 04/01/2010 09:02:23 PM 777 Views
I agree with most of this - 03/01/2010 08:19:37 PM 868 Views
Re: I agree with most of this - 04/01/2010 10:19:12 AM 808 Views
amusing side note - 04/01/2010 05:22:39 AM 722 Views

Reply to Message