Active Users:2102 Time:03/05/2026 04:17:45 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 1712 Views
Re: The Bell Curve revisited - 29/10/2012 10:21:27 AM 1079 Views
That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:26:49 AM 1651 Views
Re: That's incorrect... - 29/10/2012 10:36:32 AM 1039 Views
RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:11:19 PM 978 Views
Response to a few of your poorly researched points... - 29/10/2012 02:31:17 PM 926 Views
Re: RJ the physicist didn't know math, so that Shannow could be right... - 29/10/2012 02:37:33 PM 917 Views
Exactly... - 29/10/2012 02:39:30 PM 911 Views
there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 08:18:18 PM 936 Views
Excellent point. - 29/10/2012 08:24:37 PM 972 Views
Re: there are dozens of reasons for this - 29/10/2012 09:07:35 PM 885 Views
Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 01:57:24 AM 867 Views
Re: Again I don't argue that genetics play no role - 30/10/2012 07:07:17 AM 862 Views
I don't think it plays much role in the plot - 30/10/2012 03:17:55 PM 1026 Views
Once again just so,we are clear on my stance with Genetics and Strength - 30/10/2012 03:27:11 PM 885 Views
That the 1000 Novices aren't a random sample of the population? - 29/10/2012 08:23:47 PM 820 Views
And why would it be biased towards those with lower strength? - 29/10/2012 09:11:25 PM 844 Views
Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 01:35:35 AM 931 Views
Re: Absolutely no reason... - 30/10/2012 06:43:54 AM 835 Views
Only if it was a random sampling. Which this is not. - 30/10/2012 01:58:34 PM 932 Views
That's exactly the point. I want you to explain why it wasn't random. - 30/10/2012 02:14:59 PM 855 Views
It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:43:03 PM 858 Views
Re: It wasn't random because it was a self-selected sample! - 30/10/2012 02:47:30 PM 853 Views
Go read a stats text will you? - 30/10/2012 02:54:16 PM 842 Views
Done - 31/10/2012 09:34:11 AM 1621 Views
You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 10/11/2012 10:14:19 PM 1137 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 11:37:16 AM 958 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 07:14:48 PM 813 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:33:59 PM 1625 Views
Re: You seem to have perfected whining to a Talent... - 11/11/2012 08:43:19 PM 1198 Views
Still nothing? - 10/11/2012 03:33:15 PM 976 Views
Still doesn't explain the difference - 30/10/2012 07:01:53 PM 790 Views
Re: Still doesn't explain the difference - 10/11/2012 10:21:00 PM 885 Views
Yes that totally makes sense - 30/10/2012 08:07:16 AM 975 Views
Thank you! *NM* - 30/10/2012 10:19:15 AM 449 Views
That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:01:52 PM 929 Views
Re: That's not what happened... - 30/10/2012 02:15:57 PM 847 Views
Who said it would? - 30/10/2012 02:44:17 PM 870 Views
let's not mix up "random" and "representative" - 30/10/2012 05:28:09 PM 922 Views
Doesn't mean RJ applied it to his series - 30/10/2012 08:23:29 AM 937 Views
But of course he did.. - 30/10/2012 02:13:07 PM 984 Views
I hate to get into these things - 29/10/2012 05:45:50 PM 1006 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 1009 Views
In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 08:20:52 PM 994 Views
Overwhelm Lanfear, not match her. *NM* - 29/10/2012 08:26:09 PM 519 Views
Truth is, Moiraine was being overly optimistic... - 29/10/2012 08:39:17 PM 904 Views
You're pathetic... - 30/10/2012 01:20:01 AM 843 Views
The quote isn't specific - 30/10/2012 08:32:36 AM 947 Views
Its highly specific... - 30/10/2012 02:15:38 PM 798 Views
Yet neither of them are at full potential and at least equal a Forsaken - 30/10/2012 03:45:24 PM 1456 Views
Honestly! - 30/10/2012 02:07:37 AM 892 Views
Re: In the truest sense, you are probably right that it is skewed - 29/10/2012 09:10:27 PM 908 Views
Lots of people mean perfectly normal distribution when they say it - 30/10/2012 05:25:35 PM 852 Views
Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 12:04:01 AM 1042 Views
Re: Couldn't the Towers method of obtaining Aes Sedai be to blame? - 30/10/2012 09:33:44 AM 965 Views
Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:03:43 PM 964 Views
Re: Are you sure about that? - 30/10/2012 12:19:34 PM 870 Views
That doesn't seem a coherent narrative to me - 30/10/2012 04:26:25 PM 1210 Views
Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:16:40 PM 983 Views
Re: Sharina did not have the Spark, nor did Nicola - 30/10/2012 05:54:41 PM 853 Views
We do not know if Cadsuane or any of the Forsaken are Sparkers - 30/10/2012 10:33:55 PM 999 Views
you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 04:27:32 AM 1139 Views
+1 *NM* - 30/10/2012 09:17:07 AM 1005 Views
Re: you're confusing 2 things - 30/10/2012 09:21:39 AM 994 Views
Not true... - 30/10/2012 11:49:57 AM 961 Views
One thing - 30/10/2012 05:23:17 PM 941 Views
That's the problem. The BC RJ has "built" has a minimum and a maximum value - 30/10/2012 05:48:55 PM 955 Views

Reply to Message