Active Users:398 Time:02/05/2025 03:47:54 AM
I agree with that. But please honestly look at the math I presented. It disproves the Bell Curve. Shannow Send a noteboard - 02/11/2012 05:24:41 PM
How many different ways can someone tell you that the Mean is not by definition 50% of the Maximum? All the Mean equals is the level where the most people fall. Each SD away from the Mean makes someone more rare. There is no reason to believe that 50 MUST be the Mean.

It seemed likely for a while that 50 was the Mean because of the minimum and maximum level RJ imposed on the Bell Curve, but it's not Mathematically necessary. For instance, the Mean height for a man is roughly 70" with a SD of 3". Thus a man 3 SDs above the Mean would be 79" but would represent less than 1% of the population. likewise a man 3 SDs below the Mean would be 61" tall and represent less than 1% of the population. In neither case is the mean 50%. the only thing that MUST be true here is that there are as many SDs BELOW the Mean as ABOVE the Mean. The actual number doesn't matter as long there are an equal number of SD on each side of it. A Power scale and a % of total power are two different things.


The human height example is a flawed comparison, because the SD is so small that you never get to a point where someone is twice the average height.

But if you are dealing with a population that reaches twice the average at say 6 SD, then you have to have room for the same number of SD's on the bottom side, if the Curve is to remain symmetrical. For example, let's say that human height - averaging at 6 feet, allowed for a person 6 SD above the Mean to be 13 feet tall. How then would that curve be able to remain symmetrical while still depicting people at 6SD on the lower side?

Be that as it may. The math is the real clincher of the argument.

It destroys the idea of a symmetrical Bell Curve, based on the multiples that the likes of Moiraine and Egwene are stronger than Daigian.
This message last edited by Shannow on 02/11/2012 at 05:36:41 PM
Reply to message
Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 31/10/2012 11:30:42 AM 1575 Views
Who said RJ created a 100 point scale? I always assumed we did to make this easier to follow - 31/10/2012 02:22:51 PM 918 Views
One more point here - 31/10/2012 03:02:34 PM 795 Views
I've think I've finally done it. I've solved the entire Curve. Daigian is the key... - 01/11/2012 09:20:57 AM 1030 Views
Did some playing with your numbers to make this work better - 01/11/2012 02:13:00 PM 983 Views
The Mean and SD are set by Daigian's position. Your options are therefore not possible... - 02/11/2012 07:49:24 AM 945 Views
Yet you have many more SD between the Mean and Lanfear than you do Morgase and the Mean - 02/11/2012 02:39:51 PM 808 Views
I absolutely agree. The lower side of the curve MUST be intersected by zero after 1 SD... - 02/11/2012 03:03:52 PM 679 Views
I am not convinced Moiraine is the Mean. Merely 50% of Lanfear - 02/11/2012 04:23:57 PM 857 Views
But on a Bell Curve the Mean IS 50% of Lanfear. You've just disproven your own contention. - 02/11/2012 04:40:31 PM 772 Views
OMG no it is NOT! - 02/11/2012 05:16:36 PM 677 Views
I agree with that. But please honestly look at the math I presented. It disproves the Bell Curve. - 02/11/2012 05:24:41 PM 975 Views
It doesn't matter that you think the BC is disproved. - 02/11/2012 06:07:19 PM 810 Views
Confusing post... - 02/11/2012 06:30:40 PM 869 Views
Dreadlord is essentially describing a lognormal distribution - 02/11/2012 07:21:39 PM 762 Views
If you choose to ignore the author go right ahead. I just think you are wrong - 02/11/2012 09:05:14 PM 902 Views
A non-linear 21 point scale is fine... - 02/11/2012 11:02:48 PM 932 Views
I've been operating off of the scale I described for years - 02/11/2012 11:25:27 PM 812 Views
Re: It doesn't matter that you think the BC is disproved. - 02/11/2012 07:11:57 PM 797 Views
Not true - 02/11/2012 08:52:42 PM 853 Views
Re: Not true - 03/11/2012 09:19:11 AM 806 Views
Read my other posts - 03/11/2012 04:19:15 PM 676 Views
Not quite - 03/11/2012 08:02:05 AM 822 Views
I think it's about skill not strength - 03/11/2012 04:38:07 PM 688 Views
I think the number is about 10 - 03/11/2012 08:42:08 AM 873 Views
Nope - 03/11/2012 04:14:45 PM 796 Views
Re: Nope - 03/11/2012 04:39:07 PM 832 Views
Verin and Graendal each have angreal of unkown strength - 03/11/2012 06:15:49 PM 778 Views
Re: Verin and Graendal each have angreal of unkown strength - 03/11/2012 10:15:10 PM 838 Views
*shrugs* - 03/11/2012 10:25:18 PM 727 Views
Re: *shrugs* - 04/11/2012 07:12:21 AM 927 Views
You have 4 markers and you should use them all - 10/11/2012 03:08:37 PM 662 Views
Indeed - 10/11/2012 03:59:51 PM 803 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 01/11/2012 06:23:07 PM 854 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 01/11/2012 09:48:04 PM 816 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 02/11/2012 09:02:58 PM 839 Views
Re: Addressing problems with the Bell Curve - 02/11/2012 09:56:50 PM 914 Views
I'll have to disagree with much of this - 03/11/2012 07:46:31 AM 867 Views
Why do you always think Strength is the point - 03/11/2012 04:35:26 PM 623 Views
I don't - I merely appreciate it as a factor - 03/11/2012 04:48:24 PM 736 Views
0 Evidence? Cyndane v. Alivia is plenty of evidence EDIT with exact quote - 03/11/2012 06:17:39 PM 793 Views
One other thing you have forgotten about - 03/11/2012 10:13:09 PM 742 Views
Your agenda blinds you to logic yet again...As I'll simply demonstrate with your example here... - 03/11/2012 11:08:13 PM 805 Views
Nope, the only experience she has in reality is against Rand - 03/11/2012 11:09:54 PM 717 Views
Nonsense. - 03/11/2012 11:11:05 PM 740 Views
Believe as you will - 03/11/2012 11:26:50 PM 908 Views
That's a classic. - 04/11/2012 12:06:13 AM 754 Views
You misquote on a regular basis and have no grasp of the timeline in the series - 04/11/2012 01:36:37 AM 657 Views
Hmm... - 04/11/2012 07:08:04 AM 960 Views
stop getting all indignant ... I'm really not trying to be nasty to you - 04/11/2012 04:20:06 PM 799 Views

Reply to Message