A Bell Curve by definition means that the distance from the weakest to the strongest channeler is intersected at exactly the 50% mark by the mean (the average channeler). Any skewing of the distribution would mean that the term “Bell Curve” cannot be applied to the distribution. Instead, it would then be either a positively or negatively skewed distribution. But not a Bell Curve.
This is simply wrong. First of all, when people say bell curve, or Gaussian distribution or whatever, they never mean it literally. Nothing can ever have a perfect Gaussian distribution, as you would need an infinite sample size. However, loads of things are described to an excellent approximation by a bell curve. That is what people mean when they say something is described by a bell curve.
Secondly, there is no reason to assume the average is at half the maximum value. You can very well have a distribution which is symmetric, aside from being truncated at zero. In that case, the average strength would be slightly shifted away from the most likely strength (the top of the curve). However, it could still be perfectly reasonable to call it a bell curve.
Fram kamerater!
The Bell Curve revisited
29/10/2012 09:44:09 AM
- 1526 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited
29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM
- 910 Views
That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM
- 1483 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM
- 912 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:40:27 AM
- 763 Views
Re: That's incorrect...
29/10/2012 10:42:57 AM
- 755 Views
Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
29/10/2012 10:45:07 AM
- 843 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
29/10/2012 10:49:49 AM
- 748 Views
Re: Hehe...There are a few disputing it vocally. Whether they're in their right mind, well...
29/10/2012 10:56:37 AM
- 822 Views
It's only as skewed as it seems when you make the assumption that the Forsaken
31/10/2012 04:34:11 AM
- 1046 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right...
29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM
- 828 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right...
29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM
- 789 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this
29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM
- 805 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this
29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM
- 736 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role
30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM
- 713 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength
30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM
- 752 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population?
29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM
- 689 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength?
29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM
- 696 Views
Absolutely no reason...
30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM
- 794 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason...
30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM
- 697 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not.
30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM
- 784 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random.
30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM
- 707 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample!
30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM
- 722 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample!
30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM
- 720 Views
Go read a stats text will you?
30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM
- 715 Views
Done
31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM
- 1451 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent...
10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM
- 976 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent...
11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM
- 811 Views
Seriously? I went and looked at some statistics books, and you won't even reply?
01/11/2012 12:13:49 PM
- 821 Views
Yes that totally makes sense
30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM
- 834 Views

That's not what happened...
30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM
- 762 Views
I hate to get into these things
29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM
- 864 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
- 819 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed
29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM
- 845 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM*
29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM
- 420 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic...
29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM
- 767 Views
You're pathetic...
30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM
- 706 Views
The quote isn't specific
30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM
- 823 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken
30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM
- 1312 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed
29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM
- 763 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it
30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM
- 703 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame?
30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM
- 904 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame?
30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM
- 829 Views
Are you sure about that?
30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM
- 830 Views
Re: Are you sure about that?
30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM
- 736 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me
30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM
- 1054 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola
30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM
- 845 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola
30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM
- 725 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers
30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM
- 856 Views
Re: We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers
31/10/2012 12:30:52 AM
- 803 Views
A handful of examples are all we have and we have proof that an extremely strong Channeler
31/10/2012 02:58:57 AM
- 655 Views
you're confusing 2 things
30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM
- 971 Views
One thing
30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM
- 791 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value
30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM
- 809 Views