moiraines warder

[Nightstrike]

Of course that end game is that Nightstrike is utterly, completely, sytematically, Bush-in-Iraq level wrong... wait, what was i talking about?

Yeah, what are you talking about?

 

Oh yeah, I'm not a wanker.  ;D

...

 

*batters his eyelashes at Nightstrike* Someday you'll learn not to play with me. Until then, here's looking at you kid.

I thought it was the other way around. You trying to play with me.

 

 

I prefer to look at the facts. The facts tells me that when you tried to correct me, you were mistaken. And they tell me that you still are.

[Mr Ares]

Logically speaking, if your claim that "maths are all yours" means a symmetric curve, then both the female and the male curves would be symmetric. He mentioned the "maths are all yours" after both female and male strengths. But that was not what he meant. You've misinterpreted those remarks of his.

What did he mean then? "There's absolutely no way you can work this out, so don't even bother trying"?

[Nightstrike]

Logically speaking, if your claim that "maths are all yours" means a symmetric curve, then both the female and the male curves would be symmetric. He mentioned the "maths are all yours" after both female and male strengths. But that was not what he meant. You've misinterpreted those remarks of his.

What did he mean then? "There's absolutely no way you can work this out, so don't even bother trying"?

I don't know exactly what he had in mind. Saying that the math is all yours doesn't give any clues on the nature of the math in question. What actually does say something about the nature of these curves are the things I've already pointed out. I marked the relevant clues in bold. And then I showed that the curves can't be symmetric. But we already knew that, actually.

 

RJ's blog:

For Gyrehead, Foretelling is not related to strength.  The weakest possible channeler could Foretell as strongly as Elaida or Nicola, or perhaps even more so, depending entirely on the strength of his or her Talent for Foretelling.  The three Red Sitters were sent into exile in 985 NE under Marith Jaen.  Yes, Morgase has slowed, and that is exactly why there is so much emphasis on her looking only ten years older than Perrin when she has children the ages of Elayne and Gawyn.  Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the bellcurve.  I’ll leave the maths to you for an idle moment.  The question doesn’t really apply to men, since the Black Tower accepts anyone who can learn to channel, but if the White Tower limits were applied, it would be roughly 65.4% of the bellcurve.  Although, considering the effectiveness question, they should probably set it at the same 62.5%.  Again, the maths are all yours.  Regarding the levels of male strength, while the weakest man and the weakest woman would be roughly equivalent, you might say that there are several levels of male strength on top of the female levels.  Remember to integrate this with what I’ve said elsewhere about effectiveness, though.

 

 

The weakest man and the weakest woman is roughly the same strength. Add to that the fact that 62.5 % of the women are above the same strength as 65.4% of all the men are above. And there are several levels of male strength above the women's strength. No matter whether the 21 level list is for only women , or for men&women, these curves can't be symmetric about the mean.

 

[Mr Ares]

Logically speaking, if your claim that "maths are all yours" means a symmetric curve, then both the female and the male curves would be symmetric. He mentioned the "maths are all yours" after both female and male strengths. But that was not what he meant. You've misinterpreted those remarks of his.

What did he mean then? "There's absolutely no way you can work this out, so don't even bother trying"?

I don't know exactly what he had in mind. Saying that the math is all yours doesn't give any clues on the nature of the math in question.

So, you are absolutely certain he isn't saying what he is apparently saying, but you have no idea what he is actually saying. Right. So what makes you so sure?

And then I showed that the curves can't be symmetric.

No. You didn't. You said it. You said it several times. But you haven't shown anything. If I say RJ is a terrapin, I haven't shown RJ is a terrapin no matter how many times I say it.

these curves can't be symmetric about the mean.

Why not? That might actually involve you showing it. Bolding bits of a quote is no bloody use at all.

[Nightstrike]

I don't know exactly what he had in mind. Saying that the math is all yours doesn't give any clues on the nature of the math in question.

 

So, you are absolutely certain he isn't saying what he is apparently saying, but you have no idea what he is actually saying. Right. So what makes you so sure?

He isn't "apparantly saying" anything like what you seem to suggest. What makes you so sure about what he is "apparantly saying"?

 

these curves can't be symmetric about the mean.

Why not? That might actually involve you showing it. Bolding bits of a quote is no bloody use at all.

I actually commented on it also. I thought the rest was obvious. Some (roughly) 3 units of percentage in difference between men and women (above that strength) can not explain "several levels" of strength difference between men and women. Not if both curves are symmetric. The mean would be only slightly higher for men. Not "several levels on top of the women's strengths.". "Several" is at least 3 levels. Whether the 21 levels are for women alone, or for men & women (more likely, in my opinion), this means that these curves can not be symmetric.

 

 

 

[metria31183]

I told myself to leave this alone, but I just can't.

 

I've stated on another thread that I think the reason Luckers comes up with Siuan no loosing half her strength is that his scale is off.  I asked him about it on that same thread, but I don't recall getting a response.  (If I did and I missed it, I apologize.)  To me, the quote from RJ's blog suggests that the percentage's he mentions apply to Third Age channelers, not all channelers as a whole.  So if you remove the Forsaken and extreme outliers (like Alivia) out of the scale, then it makes sense that Siuan could loose half her strength and still be Aes Sedai.

 

You also should take into account that he said "xx percentage of the bell curve" which is not the same as a percentage of the total number.

[Nightstrike]

To me, the quote from RJ's blog suggests that the percentage's he mentions apply to Third Age channelers, not all channelers as a whole.  So if you remove the Forsaken and extreme outliers (like Alivia) out of the scale, then it makes sense that Siuan could loose half her strength and still be Aes Sedai.

I don't think that the third ager's in general are weaker than the Age of Legenders. The Forsaken were the strongest of their time. But Rand is stronger than all of them. Alivia is stronger than Moghedien, and Nynaeve is also stronger than Moghedien. In the Age of Legends, no wilder died before being trained. There were 3% channelers in the Age of Legends, now there is only 1%. And the population was much bigger in the AoL.

 

 

 

You also should take into account that he said "xx percentage of the bell curve" which is not the same as a percentage of the total number.

Percentage of the Bell curve and percentage of the channelers (potential channelers, anyway) is the same percentage.

 

 

[metria31183]

Percentage of the Bell curve and percentage of the channelers (potential channelers, anyway) is the same percentage.

 

This site http://web.cortland.edu/andersmd/STATS/normcurv.html gives a great explantion of bell curves.  This is talking about grades, but it still makes the point, especially since the percentage they are using in there example are pretty close to what we are taking about here.  In there example, 68.26% of the population falls within one standard deviation of mean on this curve.  So 68.26% of the population =/= 68.26% of the bell curve.  In this curve, 68.26% of the population equals about 33% of the bell curve (two units of standard deviation out of six total).  Also in this curve 68.26% of the bell curve (approximately four units of standard deviation out of six total) is about 85% of the total population.

 

Siuan along with Moiraine and few others were the strongest AS in the Third Age so I would put them say in the 95th percentile, put Egwene and Elayne in the 96th percentile, Nynaeve and most of the Forsaken in the 97th to 98th and Lanfear and Alivia in the 99th percentile.  The means that I'm ranking Siuan and Moiraine and stronger that 95% of all other channellers, Egwnene and Elayne stronger than 96% of all other channellers and so forth.  It doesn't mean that say Moiraine's and Egwene's strength are close to one another, this just shows where the rank compared to a percentage of the population.  Siuan has gone from 95th percentile to roughly 40th percentile.  It is plausible that she could have lost half her strenth and still be in the 40th percentile.

 

 

 

[Nightstrike]

In there example, 68.26% of the population falls within one standard deviation of mean on this curve.  So 68.26% of the population =/= 68.26% of the bell curve.  In this curve, 68.26% of the population equals about 33% of the bell curve (two units of standard deviation out of six total).  Also in this curve 68.26% of the bell curve (approximately four units of standard deviation out of six total) is about 85% of the total population.

You're talking about the x axis. Formally speaking, RJ should have said "Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the area below the frequency curve, which is in the form of a bell curve.", instead he said "Regarding the percentage of women who could test for the shawl, it would be 62.5% of the bellcurve.". It really is the same thing, but he was just not being formal. In the strictest sense, the frequency curve is the line that we see drawn. Noone is interested in the length of that line. It's the form of the curve, and the area under it that's of any interest.

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

I'm amused by how often people are totally willing to say what RJ should have said, so that his world would match their own conception of it.  Are you even willing to consider the possibility that he said it the way he did because he isn't describing what you say he "should have said"?

 

;D

 

 

[Nightstrike]

I'm amused by how often people are totally willing to say what RJ should have said, so that his world would match their own conception of it.  Are you even willing to consider the possibility that he said it the way he did because he isn't describing what you say he "should have said"?

Are you actually trying to suggest something? And to whom? If you have an idea, then say it straight out. In this case, I don't care what he "should have said". I do care for what he actually said, no reinterpretation involved. Speak up, if you have anything to say. I like to read anything with a little substance to it.

[RobertAlexWillis]

In this case, I don't care what he "should have said". I do care for what he actually said, no reinterpretation involved. Speak up, if you have anything to say.

 

Does the phrase, "cognitive dissonance" have any meaning for you?

 

If you can't see it, then I can't help you.  Anyway, there's really no good outcome for this conversation if it continues, so, if my silence from now on means you think you've won something, then feel free to have that opinion.

[Nightstrike]

If you can't see it, then I can't help you.  Anyway, there's really no good outcome for this conversation if it continues, so, if my silence from now on means you think you've won something, then feel free to have that opinion.

What conversation? You got nothing to say, and said something anyway. How could that be a conversation? What could I have won?  ???

[RobertAlexWillis]

Amazing.  You actually don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?

 

Let me try one more time.

 

You said:

I do care for what he actually said, no reinterpretation involved.

 

In your previous post, you started you argument with this phrase:

Formally speaking, RJ should have said

 

Can you honestly not see how you are doing the very reinterpretation that you claim to not be doing?

[Nightstrike]

Amazing.  You actually don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?

Why don't you give me your ideas instead?

 

You said:

I do care for what he actually said, no reinterpretation involved.

Yes, and that's true.

 

In your previous post, you started you argument with this phrase:

Formally speaking, RJ should have said

Yes.

 

Can you honestly not see how you are doing the very reinterpretation that you claim to not be doing?

OK, you seem to suggest that I am not getting what RJ meant. Let me hear your version of what he said. Please, please, please? I am not sarcastic or anything, I really honestly mean what I say. Please let me hear what you think.

 

 

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

I'm not commenting on the specific problem at hand.  I'm commenting on your approach to the problem (which, in all fairness, is not uniquely yours, which is why my original comments were not specific to you, even though your particular comment is the one that elicited them).  Your approach appears, to me, to be that you take your own idea, and then try to make RJ's words fit what you already think.  Its not uncommon, and I didn't want to make this into a personal critique (which is why I said that this conversation could have "no good outcome") because I don't expect you to believe my assessment, or to find it in any way useful.  That means that I should have just kept my mouth shut from the start, and I didn't, which is, quite often, my mistake.

 

My comments on the specific problem at hand would be this: there are many variables in play that we don't have. 

 

1)Nynaeve's method of Healing with all five Powers means that there is the possibility of different gradations of Healing within the same method; it is not a "one size fits all" style like the standard Healing method.  Someone with a greater knowledge of Healing theory may have improved on her method for Lanfear/Cyndane.

 

2)We don't have any real scale against which to measure objective "strength" in the Power.  It is simply not that cut and dried.  RJ once admitted, almost reluctantly, that he did have a rough scale in his notes for use as a writing aid.  Everything else in the way he writes makes it a much muddier picture.  So, bringing percentages into a system that we do not have thoroughly mathematized is an exercise in ambiguity at best.  I don't personally believe that RJ really wanted us to think of strength in the Power in those terms (Please note how I explicitly labeled that as my opinion, rather than saying what RJ should have said or done). 

 

3)The external evidence (everything except the poorly understood relative "strength" loss) indicates that the same thing happened to Siuan and Leane and Cyndane/Lanfear.  There is independent reason to believe that Lanfear and Moiraine were both burned out by their experience in the ter'angreal doorway in Cairhien/'finn-land.  So with murky evidence at best in one area, and very clear evidence in proper sequence in another area, I choose to believe that what happened to Cyndane/Lanfear is roughly the same procedure that happened to Siuan and Leane, either an importation of Nynaeve's method, or an importation with slight improvement.  Dissecting incomplete mathematical models of partially relevant facts is irrelevant.

[Nightstrike]

3)The external evidence (everything except the poorly understood relative "strength" loss) indicates that the same thing happened to Siuan and Leane and Cyndane/Lanfear.  There is independent reason to believe that Lanfear and Moiraine were both burned out by their experience in the ter'angreal doorway in Cairhien/'finn-land.  So with murky evidence at best in one area, and very clear evidence in proper sequence in another area, I choose to believe that what happened to Cyndane/Lanfear is roughly the same procedure that happened to Siuan and Leane, either an importation of Nynaeve's method, or an importation with slight improvement.  Dissecting incomplete mathematical models of partially relevant facts is irrelevant.

Yeah, I think the same thing happened to Siuan and Lanfear. Stilled (Siuan) and burnt out for Lanfear. And then I think they were both Healed by a woman. But Lanfear lost nowhere near half her strength, while Siuan lost MORE than half her strength.

 

My thought (and I'm not trying to say that RJ said so) is that the strength lost under such circumstances is a fixed amount - same whether you're strong or weak. Of course, that raises the question about whether some channeler below that strength could be Healed at all by the same sex. I would guess that they can't. That's my speculation on the matter, RJ has not said anything about it.

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

Stilled (Siuan) and burnt out for Lanfear. And then I think they were both Healed by a woman. But Lanfear lost nowhere near half her strength, while Siuan lost MORE than half her strength.

 

I think the mathematics on which you base that conclusion are incomplete, at best.  That was the point of my second point, which you simply ignored.

 

My thought (and I'm not trying to say that RJ said so) is that the strength lost under such circumstances is a fixed amount - same whether you're strong or weak.

 

I don't think that makes sense in light of anything else that we know about channeling.  There are channelers whose entire "strength" would be less than what Lanfear, or even Siuan, apparently lost (like Morgase).  Would that mean that Nynaeve's method simply would not work at all on them?  I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion, especially since it is base solely on an incomplete mathematical model.  Everything else in dealing with a channeler's strength (difficulty in shielding/severing, proportional contribution to a link, benefits or using angreal/sa'angreal) is proportional.  There is simply no firm evidence, or a story based need, to assume that Healing severing is any different.

[Nightstrike]

Stilled (Siuan) and burnt out for Lanfear. And then I think they were both Healed by a woman. But Lanfear lost nowhere near half her strength, while Siuan lost MORE than half her strength.

I think the mathematics on which you base that conclusion are incomplete, at best.  That was the point of my second point, which you simply ignored.

Yes, the maths on this exact subject is not complete. It's still safe to say that Lanfear lost nowhere near half her strength.

 

 

I don't think that makes sense in light of anything else that we know about channeling.  There are channelers whose entire "strength" would be less than what Lanfear, or even Siuan, apparently lost (like Morgase).

It was speculation on my part. But I still don't think that anyone (other than Harriet, BS and a few others) can say whether it makes sense or not. We've not encountered any really weak channelers that were severed and the Healed by same gender.

 

Would that mean that Nynaeve's method simply would not work at all on them?  I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion, especially since it is base solely on an incomplete mathematical model.

Yeah, that's what I think, that it won't work on them. I've not based that on much of any mathematical models. Just the different situation between Lanfear and Siuan. I don't know whether it's true or not, I have no such inside information. Just my little theory.

 

Everything else in dealing with a channeler's strength (difficulty in shielding/severing, proportional contribution to a link, benefits or using angreal/sa'angreal) is proportional.  There is simply no firm evidence, or a story based need, to assume that Healing severing is any different.

The Lanfear/Siuan difference could be an indication, assuming that they were both reduced in strength because of the same type of reason. If reduction is due to different reasons Siuan/Lanfear, then all bets are off.

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

The Lanfear/Siuan difference could be an indication, assuming that they were both reduced in strength because of the same type of reason.

 

It is possible to reach literally any conclusion, if you make the assumptions that lead to that conclusion.  The only basis for this assumption is the math that you admit is not complete.  Given that, and the verified counter-indications, which I listed in my last post, this theory is simply not viable.

[Nightstrike]

The only basis for this assumption is the math that you admit is not complete.  Given that, and the verified counter-indications, which I listed in my last post, this theory is simply not viable.

I said that the math is not complete. We still have VERY different situations between Lanfear and Siuan. That information is given without the shadow of any doubt. If you by "counter-indications" mean anything that would point towards every channeler being Healable, then no, we have no such "counter-indications". It's still just a theory. Might be wrong. We'll have to RAFO.  :) 

[RobertAlexWillis]

I said that the math is not complete. We still have VERY different situations between Lanfear and Siuan.

 

Thats what I'm trying to say.  Because the mathematical model is incomplete, we don't know that we have very different situations between Siuan and Lanfear.

 

That information is given without the shadow of any doubt.

 

No, it isn't.

 

If you by "counter-indications" mean anything that would point towards every channeler being Healable, then no, we have no such "counter-indications".

 

By counter-indications I mean the list I posted of proportional effects in dealing with a channeler's strength.  Which is what I said.

[Nightstrike]

Thats what I'm trying to say.  Because the mathematical model is incomplete, we don't know that we have very different situations between Siuan and Lanfear.

I know what you're trying to say. I still say that we know that the Siuan/Lanfear situations are far different from each other.

 

That information is given without the shadow of any doubt.

 

No, it isn't.

OK, that's what you think. I still say that we have enough information about that. With no doubt about it. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

If you by "counter-indications" mean anything that would point towards every channeler being Healable, then no, we have no such "counter-indications".

 

By counter-indications I mean the list I posted of proportional effects in dealing with a channeler's strength.  Which is what I said.

I know about the list you posted. It says nothing of this situation, though. No such "counter-indications", because the list you posted has NOT anything at all to do with Healing stilling/burned out.

 

 

 

[RobertAlexWillis]

-shrug- OK

[Mr Ares]

He isn't "apparantly saying" anything like what you seem to suggest. What makes you so sure about what he is "apparantly saying"?

So what is he apparently saying, and how can you be sure he isn't saying what I seem to be saying he's apparently saying?

 

The mean would be only slightly higher for men.

In other words, it doesn't work because you don't want it to.