Active Users:369 Time:16/09/2025 09:40:56 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 1560 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 945 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1525 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 938 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 864 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 810 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 821 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 817 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 833 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 869 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 778 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 754 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 773 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 920 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 781 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 720 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 731 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 824 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 727 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 822 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 740 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 756 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 756 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 742 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1487 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1011 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 848 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 706 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1516 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1063 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 837 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 693 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 776 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 866 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 401 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 811 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 749 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 754 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 822 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 830 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 860 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 899 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 860 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 883 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 452 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 803 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 742 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 856 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 694 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1343 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 791 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 800 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 755 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 938 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 868 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 862 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 771 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1099 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 873 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 751 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 885 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1005 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 871 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 847 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 844 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 831 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 846 Views

Reply to Message