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.
One Power strength - critical analysis of previous posts and some further ideas
03/01/2010 07:59:24 AM
- 2269 Views
I support your view, with maybe a few comments to add...
03/01/2010 02:58:05 PM
- 993 Views
where is this phantom quote of Egwene "not standing a chance"
03/01/2010 05:20:20 PM
- 693 Views
Here's the real quote
03/01/2010 05:38:59 PM
- 752 Views
Well that quote perfectly illustrates the skewed way in which you interpret the evidence...
03/01/2010 06:18:22 PM
- 714 Views
I also think the quote is specific
03/01/2010 06:34:38 PM
- 716 Views
Skill not Strength is the key that and the potential that another FS was with her
03/01/2010 06:51:46 PM
- 738 Views
Bah
03/01/2010 07:13:01 PM
- 677 Views
Who's arguing that?
03/01/2010 07:34:21 PM
- 646 Views
What ARE you arguing?
03/01/2010 07:43:06 PM
- 710 Views
That there is far more to strength in her quote!
03/01/2010 08:05:20 PM
- 614 Views
Re: That there is far more to strength in her quote!
04/01/2010 09:40:05 AM
- 799 Views
and where do I ever say Elayne is only a small step below Moghedien?
04/01/2010 03:08:37 PM
- 713 Views
You more than imply it with your own list
04/01/2010 03:39:06 PM
- 717 Views
and you are fixated on simple strength to the exclusion of everything else
04/01/2010 05:05:54 PM
- 662 Views
Re: and you are fixated on simple strength to the exclusion of everything else
04/01/2010 06:46:45 PM
- 1044 Views
Tiny Unimportant Objection to "Bell Curve" Point
03/01/2010 03:09:55 PM
- 803 Views
Re: Tiny Unimportant Objection to "Bell Curve" Point
03/01/2010 04:39:25 PM
- 713 Views
I've got a slightly revised opinion than my last post
03/01/2010 05:16:39 PM
- 919 Views
Re: I've got a slightly revised opinion than my last post
03/01/2010 06:31:09 PM
- 849 Views
It's actually not that complicated ... simple math actually
03/01/2010 07:08:52 PM
- 719 Views
Yes, but to think that RJ put that much effort into it is improbable
03/01/2010 07:19:13 PM
- 727 Views
I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things!
03/01/2010 07:56:17 PM
- 642 Views
Re: I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things!
04/01/2010 09:50:38 AM
- 758 Views
Re: I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things!
04/01/2010 03:26:10 PM
- 832 Views
Re: I'm being harsh with one poster who continues to mis-quote things!
04/01/2010 03:52:19 PM
- 706 Views
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth
04/01/2010 05:09:15 PM
- 648 Views
Dude
04/01/2010 06:21:28 PM
- 607 Views
Dude, please go back to Fionwe's post
04/01/2010 06:35:03 PM
- 648 Views
A reply...
03/01/2010 06:02:33 PM
- 651 Views
The Tower sample is skewed allright, but to the upper side of the strength range...
03/01/2010 06:36:45 PM
- 789 Views
Re: A reply...
03/01/2010 07:09:55 PM
- 784 Views
I think distance is related to Strength
03/01/2010 07:21:46 PM
- 690 Views
amusing side note
04/01/2010 05:22:39 AM
- 645 Views
Which is exactly what I envisage the AOL distribution to have looked like...
04/01/2010 07:03:51 AM
- 589 Views
Re: Which is exactly what I envisage the AOL distribution to have looked like...
04/01/2010 03:29:47 PM
- 662 Views
It may sound silly, but did you look at One Power values in the Wheel of Time CCG?
05/01/2010 12:56:41 AM
- 1093 Views
Re: It may sound silly, but did you look at One Power values in the Wheel of Time CCG?
05/01/2010 07:33:21 AM
- 743 Views